The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 9781841714660, 9781407324821

Citation preview

BAR S1088 2002 MEIRION-JONES, IMPEY & JONES (Eds): THE SEIGNEURIAL RESIDENCE IN WESTERN EUROPE

B A R

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD C 800–1600 Edited by

Gwyn Meirion-Jones Edward Impey Michael Jones

BAR International Series 1088 2002

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1088 The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2002 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841714660 paperback ISBN 9781407324821 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841714660 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2002. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Preface

iii

Editors and authors

iv

Introduction, by Gwyn Meirion-Jones, Edward Impey and Michael Jones

1

PART I: THEMATIC AND REGIONAL STUDIES Chapter 1: The myth of the keep, by Philip Dixon

9

Chapter 2: Palatium et castrum en France du Nord (fin Xe–début XIIIe siècles), by Annie Renoux

15

Chapter 3: The Great Tower as residence in the territories of the Norman and Angevin kings of England, by Pamela Marshall

27

Chapter 4: The gap below the castle in Ireland, by T E McNeill

45

Chapter 5: Scottish royal residences of the later Middle Ages: some aspects of domestic planning, by John G Dunbar

51

Chapter 6: Les résidences patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France du XIIe au XIVe siècle, by Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp

63

Chapter 7: Bishops and base-crucks: fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry, by John Crook

89

Chapter 8: Seigneurial hierarchy and medieval buildings in Westmorland by Beryl Lott

101

Chapter 9: Manors and seigneurial pretensions in the Channel Islands, by John McCormack

113

Chapter 10: The Noble Residence in Brittany: problems and recent advances in dendrochronological dating and interpretation, by Gwyn Meirion-Jones, Michael Jones, Martin Bridge, Andy Moir and Don Shewan 131 Chapter 11: Le manoir en Pays d’Auge: évolution architecturale des logis de bois du XVe au XVIIIe siècle, by Yves Lescroart 155 Chapter 12 : La vie au manoir dans l’Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles, by Michel Nassiet

161

PART II: MONOGRAPHS Chapter 13: The Imperial Hall at Frankfurt am Main: a Re-Interpretation, by Cord Meckseper

171

Chapter 14: Muenzenberg (Hesse) and its relationship to later twelfth-century castles, by Bettina Jost

179

Chapter 15: The turris famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy, by Edward Impey

189

Chapter 16: Norwich castle keep, by Paul Drury

211

Chapter 17: Norwich castle and its analogues, by Philip Dixon and Pamela Marshall

235

Chapter 18: Boothby Pagnell revisited, by Roland Harris and Edward Impey

245

*****

i

ii

Preface This volume of papers is a sequel to Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France, edited by Gwyn Meirion-Jones and Michael Jones, and published as Number 15 of Occasional Papers by the Society of Antiquaries of London in 1993. The present volume has its origins in a Colloquium which — though planned to be held in Oxford in November 1997 — was destined not to take place. The Editors are consequently considerably indebted to those intending contributors to that Colloquium who, notwithstanding their disappointment, have agreed to allow their papers to be published. In addition to expressing our profound gratitude to the contributors for their forbearance during a long period of gestation, which has itself not been without difficulties, the Editors particularly wish to thank the Society of Antiquaries of London, its officers and Publications Committee. The General Secretary of the Society, Mr D Morgan Evans, FSA, and the Managing Editor, Miss Kate Owen, and their staff also deserve our unfailing gratitude for their professionalism and support, as do Dr David Davison and his collaborators at BAR. The Editors would also wish to acknowledge the most useful assistance provided, in the early stages, by Dr Philip Dixon, FSA, who helped to prepare several papers for publication; we most gratefully acknowledge his contribution to this volume. Our colleague Mr John Simmons, OBE, FSA, Emeritus Fellow and sometime Librarian, All Souls College, Oxford, has given much of his time to read and comment upon the individual contributions; his scholarship and acute editorial observations have been of great assistance in bringing this volume to fruition. Madame Catherine Laurent, FSA, has provided French résumés of the English language papers; the translations of the abstracts into German were undertaken by Fräulein Gabriella Williamson and Herr C Kerstjens. Don Shewan drew two of the maps, for which we are most grateful. G M-J EI MJ

iii

Editors and Authors Gwyn MEIRION-JONES Professor G. Meirion-Jones, Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AB, United Kingdom Edward IMPEY Dr Edward Impey, Director of Research and Quality Control, English Heritage, 23 Savile Row, London, W1S 2ET, United Kingdom Michael JONES Professor Michael Jones, Department of History, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom ************* Martin BRIDGE Dr M. C. Bridge, Lecturer in Dendrochronology, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, United Kingdom John CROOK Dr John Crook, 52 Canon Street, Winchester, Hampshire, SO22 9JW, United Kingdom Philip DIXON Dr Philip Dixon, Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom Paul DRURY Paul Drury, English Heritage, 23 Savile Row, London, W1S 2ET, United Kingdom John G DUNBAR John G Dunbar, Patie’s Mill, Carlops, Penicuik, Midlothian, Scotland, EH26 9NF, United Kingdom Pierre GARRIGOU GRANDCHAMP Général P. Garrigou Grandchamp, Hôtel du Commandant, École de la Cavalerie, 49000 Saumur, France Roland HARRIS Dr Roland Harris, 3 Upper Platts, Ticehurst, East Sussex, TN5 7HD, United Kingdom Bettina JOST Dr Bettina Jost, Honsberger Str. 134, 42857 Remscheid, Germany Yves LESCROART Yves Lescroart, 47, rue Saint-Nicaise, 76000 Rouen, France Beryl LOTT Dr Beryl Lott, 8 Walnut Tree Lane, East Bridgford, Nottinghamshire, NG13 8NN, United Kingdom John MCCORMACK John McCormack, 4 St Peters Terrace, St Peters Valley, St Martin, Guernsey, Channel Islands T E MCNEILL Dr T E McNeill, The Queen’s University of Belfast, School of Geosciences, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom Pamela MARSHALL Mrs P. Marshall, Mylnmede, Moor Lane, Potterhanworth, Lincoln, LN4 2DZ, United Kingdom

iv

Cord MECKSEPER Professor Dr.-Ing. Cord Meckseper, Eisenacher Weg 4, 30179 Hannover, Germany Andy MOIR Andy K. Moir, [email protected] Michel NASSIET Professor M. Nassiet, 21, av. J.-M. de Hérédia, 44300 Nantes, France. Annie RENOUX Professeur Annie Renoux, Département d’Histoire, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de Maine, Avenue Olivier Messiaen, BP 535, 72017 Le Mans Cedex, France Don SHEWAN Don Shewan, 2 The Dell, Royston, Hertfordshire, SG8 9BJ, United Kingdom

v

vi

Introduction

In an earlier volume, also published by the Society of Antiquaries, the elements of seigneurial domestic buildings on both sides of the Channel were explored by divers authors utilizing a variety of techniques.1 This volume extends both the range and depth of studies of the aristocratic domestic building and we are pleased to welcome scholars from as far afield as Germany, southwest France, Ireland, Scotland and the Channel Islands (Figure 1). Together with those researchers who represent intermediate regions in England and northern France, they have contributed to a collection of papers which provides considerable insight into recent studies on the seigneurial domestic buildings of north-western Europe.2 It must, however, be emphasized that contributors were invited to present the latest in current research on the subject and not necessarily in order to provide a uniform coverage either of Western Europe, or of thematic topics. Consequently, some countries – notably the Low Countries, Italy and Spain – find no place in these pages, and wide areas remain unrepresented. It is our hope that by publishing these contributions, others may be encouraged to fill some of the lacunae. Authors are drawn from a range of academic disciplines and different cultures; it is thus unsurprising that no two contributions are alike in approach. Notwithstanding these differences of emphasis, and the considerable range of techniques demonstrated, it is nevertheless possible to group the contributions into two broad categories: thematic and regional studies; and monographs. The techniques evident in these studies are chiefly the detailed analysis of the buildings themselves, the study of relevant archival sources and, where appropriate, the application of dendrochronology or archaeological investigation; even within these parameters authors display a remarkable range of approach and skills. In his introductory essay, Dixon poses some pertinent questions about the origins, function and evolution of the keep (donjon). Five authors address major areas: Renoux with the problems of the palatium and castrum in northern France; Marshall with the Great Tower as residence in England; McNeill discusses the gap below the castle in Ireland; Dunbar considers the Scottish royal residences in the later medieval period; and Garrigou Grandchamp provides a sweeping survey of the patrician residences of south-west France, accompanied by a major inventory. Among the regional studies, Crook writes of a category of timber hall associated with ecclesiastical landholdings in southern England; Lott examines the relationship between social hierarchy and the seigneurial residence in the county of Westmorland (north-west 1 2

England), McCormack the manorial residential buildings of the Channel Islands and Lescroart those of the pays d’Auge in Normandy. Two more thematic contributions complete this part of the book: Meirion-Jones and Jones demonstrate the value of combining dendrochronological dating with the use of archival material and the detailed study of the standing buildings in Brittany; and Nassiet writes of life at the manorial level of society in western France at the end of the medieval period and the beginning of the Renaissance, basing his conclusions on a close examination of documentary material and particularly of surviving inventories. Finally, a group of six monographs — two relating to sites in Germany, one in France and three in England — completes the volume. Meckseper re-interprets the Imperial Hall at Frankfurt am Main; Jost considers the relationship of Muenzenberg to other later twelfth-century castles; Impey examines in detail the turris famosa of Ivryla-Bataille; whilst Harris and Impey reinterpret the wellknown site of Boothby Pagnell. The difficulties of interpreting evidence at Norwich castle are clearly brought out in papers by Drury and Dixon. Most contributors combine the archaeological approach with a proper use of documentary sources. Unpublished manuscript evidence and printed secondary sources are in evidence, at first chronicles only, but latterly an increasing range of administrative, financial and judicial records, and even personal mémoirs. In a limited number of cases it has been possible also to make use of the technique of dendrochronology, thereby adding precision to the altogether more subjective stylistic dating so beloved of the art historian. This technique has proved to be especially instructive where it has been possible to link the dendrochronology directly to surviving documents (for example, contracts and accounts) relating to specific phases within a longer building programme. In an earlier – and seminal – paper John Blair clarified our thoughts regarding the role and relationship of hall and chamber in the aristocratic residence;3 it is now evident that this fundamental distinction between the public and ceremonial hall – at ground- or first-floor level and the residential chamber-block – is crucial to our interpretation of the seigneurial residences of northwestern Europe at large in the Middle Ages. Blair’s demonstration that many of those structures formerly categorized as first-floor halls were – in reality – chamberblocks, has led to a re-evaluation of many sites. The significance of the free-standing chamber-block is nowhere more clearly to be seen than at Boothby Pagnell (Lincs) following re-appraisal of the surviving buildings, geophysical survey and limited excavation. This is not to say that the first-floor hall does not exist – it most certainly

Meirion-Jones and Jones 1993. Hirschbiegel 2000 provides a wide-ranging bibliography of recent work throughout Europe on buildings at the top of the social range such as castles and palaces, but is patchy for those which concern many of the present contributors.

3

1

Blair, in Meirion-Jones and Jones 1993, 1–21. See also Impey 1999 for further comment on the ‘Hall and Chamber-Block’ in an AngloNorman context.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

does, witness the many splendid surviving examples – but that many structures previously so described (particularly at the middling and lower ends of noble society) are to be thought of rather as chamber-blocks. As Dixon reminds us, the ‘keep’ (donjon in French) has been misunderstood, or rather used in altogether too free a sense. The term has frequently been applied to a series of buildings whose individual function may have varied greatly, with only feeble links between them, but which shared a common visual expression in the form of a tower, great or small. Here is a very good example of how a superficial visual impression of uniformity may gain ground in the absence of a rigorous analytical approach to planning and intended function. At one extreme such a tower might have consisted of a series of superimposed unheated cells. In his masterly synthesis on French donjons Mesqui has used the term tours-beffrois to describe such structures.4 Their function was to announce the social superiority of the lordly builder, to dominate and to intimidate his social and political inferiors; comfort was not a prime criterion. It was not enough for a great lord to look down upon his tenants; he must dominate the neighbouring lords as well. There is the somewhat enigmatic early thirteenth-century ‘tower-house’ of the Breton ducal palace of Suscinio (Morbihan), devoid of all apparent comfort;5 at the other extreme – that of luxurious residence – stands the late medieval six-storey hexagonal tower of the château of Largoët en Elven, only a few kilometres distant in the same département. This provided shelter for, among others, Henry Tudor – earl of Richmond and the future king of England – during his long years of closely-supervized exile in Brittany.6 Such towers, great and small, became the material and physical symbol of seigneurial power. The contributions to this volume inevitably raise more questions than they answer, as must be expected in a work of this sort in which vibrant, on-going, research is represented. Secular, temporal and spatial variations in the diffusion of new fashions and ideas are scarcely examined. It may have taken centuries – literally – for new ideas to pass from the highest ranks in the Île de France to the depths of the Cotentin, the Pyrenean foothills, the inner fastness of the Massif Central or the more remote parishes of rural Brittany, or from Westminster to Westmorland. The process of diffusion also leads to subtle change and adaptation. Nevertheless, the essential intended social distinctions, and their physical expression within the seigneurial residence, survive the processes of diffusion. They remain for all to see and interpret. Keep/donjon and chamber-block each embody a residential function; the great hall is their complement. One of the earliest to survive is that at Frankfurt am Main, an Imperial hall dating back to at least the eighth century. It is here interpreted by Meckseper as a great hall rising through two storeys, linked to other buildings by a covered

gallery; the great halls of Aix-la-Chapelle, Ingelheim and the Lateran palace in Rome are cited as precursors, or as near contemporaries. This impressive Carolingian palace at Frankfurt probably represents an important stage in the development of the great hall. It is unfortunate that results of the detailed study of the château of Mayenne in Western France were not available to us when this volume was in preparation. The interpretation of Mayenne, where excavation has recently revealed an imposing multistoreyed tower, probably of the tenth century – largely constructed from re-used Roman stonework brought from the neighbouring Gallo-Roman town of Jublains – will certainly result in re-appraisal of our knowledge of the earliest castles.7 Professor Annie Renoux argues that in northern France the move of the chief residence of kings and great noblemen from a palatium to a castrum, for both political and residential reasons – each subsuming the ceremonial – began during the third part of the ninth century and continued into the tenth century. It is at its height in the eleventh and twelfth centuries with the burgeoning number of major seigneurial castles, associated above all in France with the emergence of castellan lords whose hold on power has, in some regards, only been broken in modern times.8 By the early thirteenth century, the palace usually – with the growth of fortresses of increasingly geometrical plan – seems rather more an annexe to the castle. This double assertion, although not without foundation, must be explained and qualified both in theory (concept) and in practice (concrete examples). The truth is more complex and different levels of appreciation have evolved over the centuries. She argues that the ‘castralization’ of the palace falls within the Augustan vision of Carolingian imperial power; enclosures were fortified and turres erected. Generally speaking, among the chief residences of the upper echelons of the aristocracy – neither big rectangular keeps with palatial functions, nor small keeps with a strong military value, nor towers with mainly a private function – ever quite succeeded in supplanting the civilian and independent aulae as principal symbols and privileged centres of the exercise of power. Military fortifications were used at an early stage to support and enhance the authority of the magnate. They were not necessarily a dominant feature. During the tenth and eleventh centuries, the castrum sometimes came second in importance to the palace, although attention may also be drawn to the increasing domestic sophistication and physical expansion of some royal residences like Westminster or the Palais de la Cité in Paris during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. For those below the social ranks of kings and princes, 7

8

4

Mesqui 1991, 96–105. Meirion-Jones and Jones 2000, 62–6. 6 Meirion-Jones and Jones 2000, 61–2. 5

2

Early 2001 for some preliminary remarks on this important site. The classic excavation of a Carolingian seigneurial site that developed into a fortified one is, of course, that of Doué-la-Fontaine (Boüard 1973–4). We obviously cannot enter here into the lively debate on ‘the transformation of the year 1000’ or of ’la mutation féodale’, or even into discussions of the validity of the use ‘feudal’ to describe the distribution of power at this period of the Middle Ages, but see Reynolds 1994 and Barthélemy 1997 for two powerful, often conflicting, statements.

Introduction

defence criteria became paramount. Technical progress and evolution, which marked the twelfth century in civil as in ecclesiastical architecture, led to the decline of the palace which survived – in a decreasing number of instances – as representative of authority; a vast and luxurious building. On the other hand, the evolution of seigneurial power encouraged military development of great noble residences. This was the epoch of the building of the great hall (aula). Renoux argues that two architectural features emerged from the rest: the keep and the curtain-wall enclosing the palace.9 Of the detailed studies of individual great castles published in this volume, those of Ivry-la-Bataille and Norwich are of the first importance. At Norwich, the nature of the surviving evidence is such that complete agreement is unlikely ever to be reached on the original form, or precise evolution, of the structure. Here we publish two accounts, each of which contributes to the sum of our knowledge of these important structures. Drury sees Norwich as a fortified palace with the principal rooms raised above an undercroft, and contained in two large spaces in part open to the roof. A wall-gallery links mezzanines, evidently of high status, but the few fullyenclosed chambers suggests that the building’s main role was to accommodate public rather than private life. Dating from around 1000, Ivry is important to our understanding of the introduction, use and development of the ‘Great Tower’ in Normandy, and the suggestion is made that it was here that the familiar four-square doublepile formula was first arrived at. It is of importance too for the understanding of the origins and significance of the White Tower in London (c 1070–1100) and of the keep at Colchester, to which it is similar in plan and scale. Ivry existed before c 1000, showing that neither the White Tower, nor Colchester, represented a new departure in donjon building; neither was necessarily the prototype of the other. Whether Ivry was itself the actual model for the White Tower remains uncertain.10 Among works that have recently been more securely dated to around the year 1000 – or the early decades of the eleventh century – we may mention Langeais (Maine-et-Loire) and Loches (Indre-etLoire). This latter now firmly dated by dendrochronology to c 1035;11 other structures of similar form almost certainly existed in France at the time of the Conquest of England. Other studies published here seek to provide a synthesis. In the territories of the Norman and Angevin kings of England, Marshall assembles evidence for the Great Tower as residence. She draws widely in support of her thesis that, although the great towers in eleventh- and twelfth-century England and France were often the first in the castle to be erected in stone, they were ill-equipped for fighting. Marshall subdivides her donjons into seven broad categories, according to the use to which they appear

primarily to have been intended. Although greatly varying in size, finish and the facilities offered, they were built as official and symbolic residences by the highest echelons of society. They served as visible, permanent, architectural statements of lordship in an age when the lord might, in practice, be absent for most of the time. Much the same lesson may be drawn from Jost’s discussion of the case of the castle of Muenzenberg and the parallels with other contemporary late twelfth-century castles both in Germany and more widely to which she points. While incorporating a greater or lesser degree of personal comfort, their domestic provision could be on a grand enough scale to provide the backdrop for entertaining on a ceremonial level. Others still offered more modest facilities, but fulfilled a similar function in marking the local status of their owners. Although patrician residences have, as yet, been little studied in France, fieldwork by Garrigou Grandchamp and colleagues from Toulouse has brought to light large numbers of superb structures. Residences constructed by rich bishops, noblemen or wealthy bourgeois are numerous in south-west France, and particularly in the modern départements covering the old provinces of Périgord and Quercy. Such buildings may be distinguished from the more ordinary urban houses. Multifunction dwellings served, not only as a residence, but also as a place of work and/or storage, by size, scale and quality of construction, as well as by their predominantly residential function.12 The commercial or artisan function, which so often characterized the smaller town-houses, is conspicuously absent from patrician residences. It is here too, that the tower and the hall form an important and integral part of the house plan, a tower being present in a large number of those structures inventoried; the great hall is almost universally present. The study of fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry by Crook highlights, amongst other things, the persistence of the ground-floor great hall in England, with its open hearth, a feature not touched upon by other contributors. It is a matter of speculation to what extent the open hearth might once have existed on the European mainland, and when the hearth with its closed chimney came to replace it. Certainly the chimney was well-established by the eleventh century; it already appears to have been a feature of the late Carolingian aula at Douéla-Fontaine, famously excavated and published by De Boüard.13 Only relatively recently has a French timber hall with open hearth been identified and published.14 The theme of fortified residence with hall and tower is continued by Lott’s study of Westmorland, a pattern of buildings well-adapted to the insecure conditions of the Scottish Border, but not arising specially from its needs. She argues that the distribution pattern suggests that these apparent fortifications were linked to the aspirations

9

12

Renoux 2001 explores these themes in greater depth. Impey, forthcoming, surveys important recent work on the Tower of London. 11 Impey and Lorans 1998 for Langeais; Dormoy 1998 for Loches.

For an early and extremely celebrated example at Saint-Antonin-NobleVal, see Scellès 1989. 13 Boüard 1973–4. 14 Impey 2003 forthcoming; Smith et al. 1995.

10

3

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

of the landlords and tenants who built them – rather than to the result of the Scottish wars. They show a correspondence between the building of towers by knightly tenants and two-storeyed solar blocks by others, including lawyers, attorneys and those made wealthy by trade.15 Below the level of the castle in Ireland, as McNeill demonstrates, the numerous tower houses of the later Middle Ages acted as the manorial centres of the period, but provide a different set of accommodation from the image of the manor house as derived from the south of England. In Ireland social and economic patterns followed the prolonged crisis precipitated by the Black Death in the fourteenth century. Tower houses provide chamber towers for the minor lords and gentry, with appropriately reduced accommodation suitable for small ‘gentry’ households, whose principal economic mainstay was the cattle farming practised during the fifteenth century. Four papers dealing with the Channel Islands and western France complete this volume; these enable us to step from the medieval period into that of the Renaissance. The Channel Islands occupy a privileged position in the western seaways, but – notwithstanding their proximity to the French coast – retaining a fierce loyalty to the English Crown. Islanders, virtually independent in practice, used the design and decoration of their homes, within a French architectural vocabulary, to demonstrate an affluence and social importance very different from that available to anyone of less than seigneurial status in the surrounding parts of France as McCormack’s closely observed study reveals. For the period that bridges the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance the volume focuses on Scotland and Brittany. Differences in planning between the greater royal residences of Scotland and that of the lesser ensembles are studied by Dunbar. Buildings of the smaller residences were, in general, more loosely grouped that those of the greater structures. The principal components of the royal residence were ‘the hall, the chamber and the chapel of the king’16. To this inner core was added accommodation for the queen and other members of the royal family as well as for guests and departments of the household, such as the wardrobe, kitchen and stables, each staffed by its own complement of officials. No particular building type or layout was prescribed for the design of a royal residence. The king’s great hall could function as effectively in a tent when he was on campaign, as in a purpose-built structure. Similarly the ecclesiastical (as opposed to the chancery) functions of the royal chapel could be accommodated within an oratory opening off one of the principal chambers; at several sites no separate chapel is known to have existed. In the lesser residences buildings were, in general, more loosely grouped than those of the palaces. Hall and principal chambers were almost invariably placed at firstor upper-floor level, Scottish custom in this respect being 15

16

more akin to Continental than to English practice. Nowhere is there anything approaching the classic medieval English ground-floor hall with its uniform arrangement of service and chamber wings. In some residences the hall was fully integrated within the range or building of which it formed part, as was customary on the Continent, but relatively uncommon in England. Elsewhere, the great hall was designed as an independent unit in the English manner. In the smaller residences there was hardly space to provide the king with a separate private lodging, although nearly all had separate great halls. A number of the larger residences, however, seem to have incorporated separate private suites. A number of later Scottish royal lodgings took the form of a towerhouse. At Holyrood the queen’s rooms were placed directly above the king’s17 and this makes it likely that the same arrangements were followed in other stacked lodgings. A similar system seems to have prevailed in France, though not without important exceptions,18 whereas in England, during the short period during which stacked lodgings were fashionable, it is thought that the king’s rooms usually occupied the higher of the two floors. In Brittany it is the apartments of the wife which are generally situated over that of the husband, some sites having a discrete private secondary stairway linking the two. Brittany possessed a large population of minor nobility whose buildings activities have left several thousand small manoirs, and a not inconsiderable number of greater houses, many of which conserve medieval fabric. Here too, the hall retained its function; chamberblocks have been identified in some numbers and the technique of dendrochronology successfully used to add precision to the dating of surviving structures. In his short essay, Nassiet goes a considerable distance towards reconstituting the way of life in the manorial domestic buildings of the minor nobility in north-west France during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, complementing the survey of these buildings by Meirion-Jones and Jones. In an account firmly based on written sources – which by that date have become much more plentiful – he has made particular use of the earliest surviving probate inventories and the well-known journal of the sixteenth-century Norman gentleman, the seigneur de Gouberville. Other important documentary survivals include aveux. These acknowledge and list holdings and feudal rights and usually include a description (though this might be very formal) of the principal residence of the person delivering the aveu. The latter were rendered to a superior lord at the moment of a change in succession, or, in the case of royal or ducal vassals, following demands for the performance of homage. Nassiet’s analysis gives a vivid picture of domestic life and the rural economy. The raising of livestock, though often on a very modest scale on home farms (métairies), was a characteristic feature of the lives

Séraphin 1999 provides a startling parallel to these problems from an entirely different region, that of Gascony. See below 54.

17 18

4

See below 53. Contamine 2000, 83–4.

Introduction

of most northern French gentry in this period as Nassiet’s published appendices eloquently demonstrate.19 Whilst the lord would entertain numerous guests to dinner in the ground-floor hall, feasts and solemn actions would also take place there. Simpler hospitality, with more intimate acquaintances, might be offered in the kitchen, though few guests would dine in it. The seigneurial chamber, upstairs, was not a particularly private room and visitors might be received there, though in somewhat greater comfort and intimacy than in the hall, if the provision of larger windows, fireplaces, fixed furnishings, chairs and other mobilier may be taken as indicative. Finally, these regional studies are completed by a short analysis of the magnificent late medieval and early Renaissance manoirs of the pays d’Auge, many of them employing extensive and highly-decorated timber framing. Yves Lescroart, until recently Conservateur-en-Chef for the region of the Haute Normandie, has been responsible for recording, and – where appropriate – arranging the preservation of these and other important medieval survivals for many years. In all these studies, emphasis has been on the building as a residence; the great hall, the tower (whether inhabited or not) and the chamber-block are all recurring elements. Indeed, the presence of a ground-floor hall, a seigneurial chamber raised above ground level, with accompanying provision for cooking and storage (particularly of wine) we have previously described as the ‘seigneurial minimum’ of accommodation. The hall is the heart of a domaine where everyone is received and where the formal business of the administration takes place. The seigneurial chamber was also a place where persons of rank might expect to be received; it was a multi-functional room in which private business might be discussed, family and friends entertained and private meals taken. The greater houses which are described in some detail in these pages are an elaboration on this theme of hall and chamber, public life and private, but the pattern of life within these grand residences is much harder to elucidate in detail. It is greatly complicated by the size of some of the households and the social hierarchies within them; by the interplay of family relationships and the persistent and all-pervading thread of kinship. The need to accommodate and cater for a large retinue of officials and servants – and provide for their to-ing and fro-ing within the house in such a way as not to intrude on the more formal liturgy of ceremonial life – is a crucial factor in our still imperfect understanding of the functioning of many of our greater buildings.20 Fascinating though these studies are, they are inevitably confined to the theme of this volume, the seigneurial residence. But the residence cannot fully be understood out of its physical context. Many residences 19

20

were part of a much larger fortification. Fortified or not, every lordly residence from the Middle Ages onwards was surrounded by gardens and park, by woodland, meadow and pasture, orchards and lakes, mills and farms; the seigneurial residence was only one element in a domaine which in itself constituted a whole economy and supported a population, not just of human beings but of domestic and wild animals, fauna and flora. This noble landscape too was the result of evolution over many centuries; it too was every bit as full of symbolism as was the principal residence itself, and for the most part awaits further study.21 GWYN MEIRION-JONES University of Reading EDWARD IMPEY English Heritage MICHAEL JONES University of Nottingham Bibliography Barthélemy, D 1997. La mutation de l’an mil, Paris Blair, J 1993. ‘Hall and chamber: English domestic planning 1000–1250’, in Meirion-Jones and Jones, 1–21 Boüard, M de 1973-4. ‘De l’aula au donjon. Les fouilles de la motte de la chapelle à Doué-la-Fontaine (Xe– XIe siècles)’, Archéol Méd, 3–4, 5–110 Contamine, P 2000. ‘Espaces féminins, espaces masculins dans quelques demeures aristocratiques françaises XIVe–XVIe siècle’, Das Frauenzimmer. Die Frau bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, 6. Symposium der Residenzen-Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, ed. Hirschbiegel, J and Paravicini, W, Residenzenforschung, Band 11, Stuttgart, 79–90. Dormoy, C 1998. ‘L’expertise dendrochonologique du donjon de Loches (Indre-et-Loire): des données fondamentales pour sa datation’, Archéol Méd, 27, 73–89 Early, R 2001. ‘Les origines du château de Mayenne. Apports archéologiques’, in Renoux, A (ed), 273– 87 Hirschbiegel, J 2000. ‘Auswahlbibliographie von Neuerscheinungen zu Residenz und Hof 1995– 2000’, Mitteilungen der Residenzen-Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Sonderheft 5, Kiel, 1–225 Impey, E 1999. ‘The Seigneurial Residence in Normandy, 1125–1225: an Anglo-Norman Tradition?’, Med Archaeol, 43, 45–73

Jones 2000a and 2000b provide further case studies of other Breton gentry families of the period, drawing heavily on probate inventories and other archival sources. Woolgar 1999 is the best recent discussion of the physical and social setting of noble life in medieval England.

21

5

As has been realized with regard to some high-status ecclesiastical sites in England: Way 1998.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Impey, E forthcoming. The White Tower, London Impey, E forthcoming 2003. ‘The Manoir des Vallées at Barneville-la-Bertran, Normandy’, Vernacular Architecture, 34. Impey, E and Lorans, E 1998. ‘Langeais, Indre-et-Loire: an archaeological and historical study of the early Donjon and its environs’, J Brit Archaeol Assoc, 151, 43–106 Jones, M 2000a. ‘Les “«archives du succès»? Les débuts d’une grande dynastie parlementaire bretonne, les Becdelièvre’, Guerre, pouvoir et noblesse au Moyen Âge. Mélanges en l’honneur de Philippe Contamine, ed Paviot, J and Verger, J, Paris, 353– 62 Jones, M 2000b. ‘The Material Rewards of Service in Late Medieval Brittany: Ducal Servants and Their Residences’, Concepts and Patterns of Service in the Later Middle Ages, ed Curry, A and Matthew, E, Woodbridge, 119–44 Meirion-Jones, G and Jones, M (eds) 1993. Manorial domestic buildings in England and Northern France, London, Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers, 15 Meirion-Jones, G, Jones, M, Bridge, M, Moir, A, Shewan, D 2000. ‘La résidence noble en Bretagne du XIIe au XVIe siècles: une synthèse illustrèe par quelques exemples morbihannais’, Bull et Mém de la Soc polymathique du Morbihan, 126, 27–103 Mesqui, J 1991. Châteaux et enceintes de la France médiévale, Paris Renoux, A (ed) 2001. Qu’est-ce qu’un palais médiéval? Données historiques et archéologiques, VIIe Congrès international d’archéologie médiévale, Le Mans 1999, Le Mans Reynolds, S 1994. Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted, Oxford Scellès, M 1989. ‘La maison romane de Saint-AntoninNoble-Val (Tarn-et-Garonne)’, Mém de la Soc archéol du Midi de la France, 49, 44–119 Séraphin, G 1999. ‘Salles et châteaux gascons, un modèle de maisons-fortes’, Bull mon, 157, 10–42 Smith, P, Bans, J-C, Gaillard-Bans, P 1995. ‘Le manoir de Saint Lô, Aclou’, Vernacular Architecture, 26, 26–32 Way, T 1998. The Landscapes of God: Medieval Parks and Gardens associated with Religious Houses. Unpublished paper delivered at the Sussex Archaeological Society, Autumn Conference, 24 October 1998 Woolgar, C M 1999. The Great Household in late medieval England, New Haven

6

Introduction

Figure 1 Location of regions and sites

7

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

8

The Myth of the Keep by

Philip Dixon

The origin of this paper lies in a convivial evening in Cumnor, when the writer spoke with enthusiasm about the misuses of the word ‘keep’. While thus elated, he agreed to write a paper to serve as the introduction to the current volume; it is offered in a jovial spirit, but with a serious point. In the simplest terms, this paper says that we are using the wrong words and applying them to a number of structures, which should have a variety of names. To achieve this end, the story is divided into seven myths: the myths of name, last resort, fortification, residence, solar tower, display, and, finally, the myth of unity.

fortifications, an equation which was being made as early as 1598. THE MYTH OF LAST RESORT So far, this sounds merely etymological, and even quaint, but the new derivations have created a substantial amount of confusion, which is with us yet. The view that the keep functioned as a final refuge for the garrison of a castle derives strength from this source, fuelled by the work of scholars who heard the words ‘keep’ and ‘hold’ as synonyms: thus Bates adopted the latter word (from the same notion of hanging on till the end) in his magnificent account of Northumbrian castles, Border Holds . . .,3 and ‘a hold’ was (and perhaps still is) a term of poetic inspiration. Refuges may be necessary, but they are hardly first choice for dwellings, and the baggage attached from this source to the word ‘keep’ is considerable. Associated adjectives in the dictionary entry include, ‘grim’, ‘lonely’, ‘dark’, ‘black’, ‘martial’, almost all from the nineteenth century, and, ultimately, ‘crumbling’ and ‘mossy’. There may well be keeps designed as points of last resort. It is, after all, hard to find convincing alternatives for the tall, almost windowless, unheated and insanitary towers which occur from time to time from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries, and which include the round monastic towers of Ireland, the Bergfrieden of the German states, and perhaps the few oddly featureless towers like West Malling (Kent), and Manorbier (Dyfed). The problem, and the consequent myth, is to suppose that this is a designed function of any but a few great towers. At a pinch, most things may be of use in last resort: the farm of Hougoumont was pivotal at Waterloo, the brick house of Basing withstood months of siege; and orchards, churchyards and even boundary ditches have on occasion served to separate winners and losers.4 The myth is to suppose that The White Tower, or Norwich, or Newcastle keep were actually designed to help the defenders fight to the last plank, and so to follow George T Clarke in describing his keeps largely in terms of inconveniences inserted into the plan to confuse attackers.5 To a degree, the stalwart defence of Rochester keep in 1215 has done a disservice to castle studies, for it has concentrated minds on the floor by floor capture of a keep, rather than the much more customary surrender of the whole castle at a much earlier stage (after the failure in the field of a relieving force, after a set period of time, after the collapse of outer defences, or, quite rarely, after the food of the defenders had run out).

THE MYTH OF THE NAME It is probably worth pointing out at the start that the word ‘keep’ has been used to refer to any number of large rectangular or round towers for at least four hundred years. To that extent it is a term hallowed by age, and it was used without embarrassment by the founding fathers of castellology, G T Clark, Hamilton Thompson, Sidney Toy, or R Allen Brown, and it is still in regular modern use by almost everyone else who has spoken, or written, about castles. That is not the problem, and this paper does not seek to arouse a merely terminological dispute, which is in any case quite straightforward. Kenyon and Thompson, in a recent paper of exemplary clarity, have demonstrated that the probable origin of the word is a colloquial use in 1375– 6 of the term kype, ie, ‘basket’ [ME kype, cupe, coope, Latin cupa, a cask] to refer to the strongly-banded squat round tower – or shell-keep – at Guines, a strategically vital point in the English Pale of Calais, to which any English soldier of the later Middle Ages was likely eventually to be sent. By the middle of the sixteenth century the term ‘keep’ was being more widely used, chiefly to refer to what we would now call shell-keeps.1 From this point arises the ‘myth of the name’, for any possible remembered link with its origins was severed with the loss of Guines in 1558, and later generations seized upon a folk etymology, deriving the word from the verb ‘to keep’. In Middle English and later ‘keep’ could be used as a noun to signify what we would now rather call ‘keeping’, ie, ‘in his keep{ing}’, and also what was kept; for example the flock of a shepherd could be ‘his keep’.2 Like the garbling together of ‘motte’ and ‘moot’, this new identification proved persuasive enough for the creation of a variant family history, and the editors of the OED, following this line, linked the later uses of ‘keep’ as a part of a castle, with the rare Italian term tenazza, denoting a refuge point or stronghold in contemporary Renaissance

3

Bates 1891. Becke 1995, 187–9. 5 Clarke 1884, ii, 218.

1

4

Kenyon and Thompson 1995, 175–6. 2 Caxton, Spenser, and as late as Keats: for all this see OED, s.v. Keep.

9

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

THE MYTH OF FORTIFICATION

first to the curtain walls and towers, and gates, and not to the donjons at all.9 The keep, in other words, was the last element to receive the necessary tools for defence. It is particularly interesting to note that, after the siege of Rochester, the rebuilding of the keep in the 1220s took only cursory notice of the details of the collapsed corner (blocking windows and arches, and cobbling up the mural passage) but introduced a new gallery with flanking arrow fire into the new round turret added to the keep: this clearly signals a change to the perceived need, and is a most striking example of the common practice of building for the previous war.

This leads us to a somewhat more controversial issue. How can we assert that these keeps are fortifications? Contemporary usage will help here, for, in the chronicles and historians of the eleventh and twelfth century, towers and castles are commonly called munitissima, or some variant of fortis or fortissima. Thus we may take it that, in the eyes of the time, they were fortified. But the ‘myth of fortification’ is to conflate the great range of styles and purposes of fortification, or, even worse, to confuse attitudes to fortification adopted by different eras or different cultures. Is a shallow ditch, fortified when the presence of skulls set in the bottom prevents warriors brought up in the same culture from crossing it?6 Is a site fortified when its water supply lies outside its defences, and requires the daily passage of non-combatants to collect water? The Gauls thought so, but the Romans, unfortunately, did not, and attacked the women carrying water to the oppidum of Uxdellodunum, females who, to a Gallic warrior, were culturally invisible.7 Is a church fortified when it has a solid Ottonian or Romanesque westwork (with large and open doors)? And do the crenellations and machicolations of the churches of southwestern France, such as Rudelle, or the solid towers of Border churches such as Ancroft or Newton Arlosh, make them fortifications? Is it sufficient to create a fortification simply by declaring a site to be fortified as at Cooling Castle in Kent? Presumably all these examples satisfy some description of ‘fortified’, since the essence of fortifying something is to make it stronger than it would otherwise be. The best notion of what was intended is thus probably the old Scots boast, ‘a house that a man must knock at ere he enter.’ But the myth of which I speak is to assume that the concept of fortification is understood and agreed, whereas actually it is a cluster concept, in which the possession of one or two or three elements, from a long list of possibilities, is sufficient to create a fortification. The strongest sense of fortification (artillery fortifications, coastal forts, and so forth) would probably exclude most keeps from the class, and this is certainly anachronistic, since it is particularly noticeable how little attention was paid during the eleventh and twelfth centuries to anything like tactical provisions for the fortifications of keeps, other than shutting the door. Students of castles, describing the keeps of their chosen examples, repeatedly point to the difficulty of providing any fire from the interiors of keeps, or even seeing who was outside, and in consequence appear to apologise for what was not in fact intended. Even thick walls are not an absolute requirement, since there is a category of relatively thin-walled keeps,8 and some of the thickest-walled examples seem rather to have been so designed in order to accommodate tiers of mural chambers and passages in the thickness of the wall. Furthermore, there are no arrow loops before the end of the twelfth century, and when they are introduced, they are applied

THE MYTH OF RESIDENCE In these circumstances it is natural to suppose that there is a binary opposition between defence and residence, and for the past half century or more authors have laid stress on the attempt to ‘combine all the major domestic buildings of a feudal household into a dominant whole by crowding and stacking them together’.10 This is a very tempting route to take, but it too has some of the characteristics of a ‘myth’. ‘Residence’ is a word too easily understood, for it encompasses an even greater variation of factors which influence the planning of a building than does the concept ‘fortification’. As a result we too readily believe that we understand what was meant by aula, camera, and capella, hall, chamber and chapel, in medieval documents: very nearly every single account of a castle will use these terms in mentioning its internal spaces, adding only words such as ‘garrison’ or ‘attendants’’ or ‘lord’s’ to ‘hall’. Few accounts, however, present us with a coherent sequence of rooms, and an explanation of their combined layout. Unfortunately for us, anything we say of these things is coloured by knowledge from later sources, and we find it easier to populate the keep with fifteenth- and sixteenthcentury occupants than with its builders. We really have little idea of the lifestyle of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and consequently little idea of what would be regarded at that time as adequate for the needs of each social class and gender. Here I would wish to introduce a triad of issues to be kept in mind: the difference between the design function, the actual use, and the modification. The first is what the builder thought he was building. This may correspond with the aim of the patron, but need not. In consequence the actual use may at once differ from the design function, or may differ over time, with changing circumstances. In general, the more detailed the specification, the more rapidly does the design become obsolete. Modifications are significant in displaying either the failure of the design brief to meet the case, or a sign of changing needs. In all this it is important to note that documentary statements of thirteenth- or fourteenthcentury use are of very little help in identifying the intended purpose of eleventh- or twelfth-century buildings.

6

Hambledon Hill, Dorset: Mercer 1980. Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 40. 8 Thompson 1992, 13–23. 7

9 10

10

Renn 1997, 55–9. Renn 1997, 53.

Philip Dixon: The Myth of the Keep

top.14 Falaise, mentioned earlier, during the later part of the twelfth century and the early thirteenth, was extended by the addition of a new solar block by Henry II, and the building of a wholly new solar tower in the form of an attached tour philippienne. The developmental pattern of chambers from the eleventh to the twelfth century thus described has one obvious counter-example, the presumed residential tower at Loches, with a lordly house at the top of a very tall tower. The recent dating of Loches to c 1035 appears sound,15 but it seems at present to create an extreme anomaly which needs further consideration. In view of these complexities, it is clear that the ‘myth of residence’ is a belief that saying that a keep is residential is no more sufficient than saying that a keep is fortified.

What should be necessary to prove a design function of residence? Some or all of the following would be useful: fireplaces, garderobes, and spaces of varying sizes, to accommodate a wide range of functions. Thereafter nothing is straightforward: in the wise words of Allen Brown, ‘the interpretation of medieval domestic arrangements is hazardous’,11 though this has not dissuaded most writers from identifications of most of the spaces. Where the ‘myth’ becomes strongest is in the application of the general terms ‘hall’, ‘chamber’, ‘storage room’ or ‘services’, to the spaces within a keep without trying to be clear about the real function of the room. In this paper it is probably not appropriate to go into detail.12 For the moment it may suffice to say that the great towers of Chepstow and the White Tower seem to have been designed without any domestic or living accommodation at all, and that the keep of Hedingham (Essex) was built to serve solely as the reception area for display.13 Other great towers, such as Norwich and Falaise, contained a very limited amount of very high status accommodation (that is to say, a king’s room) together with a suite of reception halls. Castle Rising keep contained sufficient lordly accommodation to be considered a noble house, but it is worth noting that this building seems to have been left unfinished for nearly two centuries, while the noble occupants of the castle actually lived in a courtyard house in the bailey below. It seems, in fact, that the notion of a keep as the great lord’s house is relatively hard to find in the eleventh century, may be possible in the early to mid twelfth century, and only becomes clear towards the end of that period, when Orford, Scarborough, and Newcastle upon Tyne provide examples of Henry II’s building which probably are best interpreted as private houses for the king kept separate from the halls and chambers of the bailey. This is to introduce our fifth myth, the ‘myth of the solar tower’, which is, after all, only a subset of the residential myth. Several keeps in addition to those mentioned above appear to contain only a private hall, a chamber and chapel, with fireplaces, garderobes, and even a small kitchen, or reheating room. For examples of this we can look at Conisborough (Yorks), or Étampes (Eure), both of the third quarter of the twelfth century, or shortly after. These are, then, ‘solar keeps’. But they are not so much a separate category side by side with reception halls, but a phase in the development of the keep: from the middle of the twelfth century and onward into the thirteenth century there is an increasing trend towards the insertion of small rooms into the older keeps: these presumably indicate the creation of private chambers in the older buildings, either because of a growth of privacy in lifestyle which is elsewhere indicated, or, in this context more likely, the change of function in these older keeps from being purely reception halls to including dwelling houses of at least part of the household. In some cases, for example, Norham, this trend includes the conversion of a first-floor reception area into a keep with a solar tower on

THE MYTH OF DISPLAY AND STATUS Since the author has spent some time in promoting this position, it may seem a little peculiar that he should regard it as yet another myth, but it is in danger of so becoming. The problem here is not that some keeps were built for display, prestige, or the ostentatious exhibition of power. The problem is that all were; and, indeed, beyond the bare minimum necessary for shelter, all building of pretty well any age contains in its design an element of display. But that display should seldom be considered the complete reason for construction. That behind each ecclesiastical or secular project was an agenda beyond the immediately visible is clear enough, and has been discussed in detail by various scholars. Heslop, indeed, has demonstrated the probability that the designer of the great tower at Orford was making architectural statements about recent developments in continental palace throne-rooms and harking back to Arthurian myth and to the New Testament,16 and that the architect of Norwich keep was concerned with balancing his design by adopting a complex sequence of proportions turning around the square root of two.17 Sometimes we find that the meaning of these hidden messages is clear enough. Thus at the White Tower the windows of the principal apartments are framed on the façade within broad shallow arches, whose parallels lie with the monumental buildings of classical Rome, or with the tenth- and eleventh-century churches of the Byzantine empire, or with the palace of Charlemagne at Aachen (which itself derives from Roman models). The message at all events is the same: a recalling of Romanitas, with its overtones of power and authority, and a similar echo may lie behind the design of the great tower which occupied the westwork at the cathedral of Lincoln.18 In other cases, however, it is much more difficult to read any message. We cannot ignore the probable existence of such a thing, nevertheless, even though we cannot see it. Without documentary evidence it would have been hard to credit 14

Dixon and Marshall 1993b, 410–32. Dormoy 1998, 73–89. 16 Heslop 1991, 36–58. 17 Heslop 1994, 25. 18 Gem 1983, 24–6. 15

11

Brown 1986, 39. Dixon forthcoming. 13 Dixon and Marshall 1993a, 16–23. 12

11

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

that the rude churches of Earl Thorfinn on Orkney were intended to recall the grandeur of Rome, or that a twelfthcentury observer of Wilfred’s church at Hexham could say that it brought to mind the churches of the ancient empire.19 When the buildings are less obvious or documents fail, we are largely ignorant, except in point of size: can we assume that the bigger the building the more important it was intended to be? Perhaps not. The great height of tower keeps, especially during the second half of the twelfth century, has been linked to the development of the trebuchet.20 The idea, that it is harder to land a stone on the roof at the top of a tall tower than on that of a lower one, is undoubtedly sound, and to accept it would take away some of the force from the argument for display. But it is less than certain that this was the actual reason for the height. A case in point is Richmond (Yorkshire). Here the great tower was built about 1170 on the top of an eleventhcentury gate. It contains few elements suitable for residence, and none – apart from its thick walls – for any defence; it was surmounted by a roof well below the battlemented wall-head. On the external face at first-floor level a row of three large openings almost certainly provided a balcony for display overlooking the castle-town below. There is much more to be said about the complex interrelationship of size, height, domesticity and fortification, but for the moment it will be enough to say that the current trend of emphasising display at the expense of the other factors is in danger of creating, in ‘the myth of display’, yet another shibboleth.

of factors behind these new taller towers in the second quarter of the twelfth century, one might well find it useful to consider these perhaps related observations. How could a knight of the late eleventh or earlier twelfth century demonstrate that he was as much a warrior as his father or grandfather, who had, after all, won a kingdom? The reign of Henry I saw several periods of tension, but there was little after the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106 to encourage members of the military caste to intervene in insular politics.22 The First Crusade must have seemed to be an opportunity for showing their prowess, but participants seem to have found that reputations won Outremer did not long survive their homecoming, and crusading as a prestigious occupation rapidly declined: by 1110 the combatants in the Holy Land had been reduced to about three hundred knights.23 The Tournament, which provided a forum for military display later in the century, had yet to become established,24 and even the practice of emblazoning and elaboration of armour was in its infancy. One of the elements which remained for these somewhat purposeless lords may have been an exaggeration of the military aspect of their residences, by building yet higher towers from which to hang their flags. These considerations, and the various myths presented above, combine to provide us with our final myth, the ‘myth of unity’. It should be clear by now that any close examination of the design of individual great towers reveals that almost every one is a unique building: very few fall into categories, and in cases when one seems to bear a close resemblance to another, careful study shows that the resemblance may more often be the result of modifications, a convergence of design which may be as late as the fifteenth century.25 The final problem with the use of the word ‘keep’ is not that the word ‘donjon’ is a better one (because it conveys the notion of power and dominance, and was used from time to time in the twelfth century and after), or even that ‘great tower’ is more neutral (which is probably true, though the best translation of the most common Latin term for a keep, as found in the documents, is rather ‘big tower’). The final problem is that there is no single type of structure to which a single word should refer, and that to act otherwise is to muddle and muddy thought, so that the donjon of Knaresborough (1307–12), the great tower of Tattershall (1430s) or the Lilburn Tower at Dunstanburgh (1325) may be described as ‘a Norman keep in spirit, though far later in date’;26 or to say that keeps come to an end with Dover, or Pembroke, or Coucy, only to be revived later.27 In reality these towers come in a variety of shapes, and for a variety of functions, and a final plea is for the avoidance of portmanteau words which pretend to embrace what they cannot actual cover, for to call a building a keep is to start, and not to end, the discussion.

THE MYTH OF UNITY We come finally to the overall myth, and what is left to discuss? Perhaps two things. The first is the rather unexpected observation that in England the bulk of known keeps (a little short of 150 of the two hundred keep-like buildings erected before 1220) belong to the period after 1120 and that the tempo of building seems to have been at its height between about 1130 and about 1160, tailing off after that point except in the new colonies in Wales and Ireland. Those who favour the correlation between the building of keeps and the troubled years of the Anarchy may be encouraged by this. In detail, however, there seems to be some problem, since several dated groups (such as the Norfolk towers) seem to predate the usurpation of Stephen, and the castles with new keeps appear to have played a relatively insignificant part in the campaigning, most of which was concerned with castles which happened to be motte-and-baileys. This needs much fuller treatment, but for the moment it may be useful to point out that the rebuilding of Castle Acre to create a great tower included the demolition or lowering of part of the curtain wall, apparently to make it easier to admire the new building from the London road.21 If one wishes to identify a nexus

22

Green 1986, esp.15–18. Forey 1992, 7. 24 Crouch 1990, 32–3, 174–7. 25 Dixon and Marshall 1993b, 428–9. 26 Freeman, E A, quoted in Northumberland County History, ii, 91. 27 For these later examples, see Dixon and Lott 1993, 93–101. 23

19

William of Malmesbury 1870, 255. Braun 1935, 64. 21 Coad 1982, 138–302. 20

12

Philip Dixon: The Myth of the Keep

Dixon, P and Marshall, P 1993a. ‘The donjon at Hedingham’, Fortress, 18, 16–23 Dixon, P and Marshall, P 1993b. ‘The Great Tower in the twelfth century: the case of Norham Castle’, Archaeol J, 150, 410-32 Dormoy, C 1998. ‘L’expertise dendrochronologique du donjon de Loches (Indre-et-Loire): des données fondamentales pour sa datation’, Archéol Méd, 27, 73–89 Forey, A 1992. The Military Orders, London Gem, R 1982. ‘Ecclesia Pulchra, Ecclesia Fortis’, in Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln, Brit Archaeol Assoc, London, 9–28 Green, J A 1986. The Government of England under Henry I, Cambridge Heslop, T A 1991. ‘Orford Castle, nostalgia and sophisticated living’, Arch Hist, 34, 36–58 Heslop, T A 1994. Norwich Castle Keep, Norwich, University of East Anglia Impey, E forthcoming. The White Tower Kenyon, J and Thompson, M W 1995. ‘A note on the word “keep”’, Med Archaeol, 38, 175–6 Mercer, R 1980. Hambledon Hill: a Neolithic Landscape, Edinburgh Northumberland County History, ed J Bateson, 1893, ii, Newcastle Renn, D 1998. ‘Castle fortification in England and adjoining countries from 1150 to 1250’, Le Château médiéval et La Guerre dans l’Europe du Nord-Ouest. Mutations et Adaptations. Salamagne, A, et Le Jan, R (eds), Rev du Nord, Hors Sér Collection Art et Archéologie, 5, 53–9 Thompson, M W 1992. ‘Keep or country house? Thinwalled Norman proto-keeps’, Fortress, 12, 13–23 William of Malmesbury, ed N Hamilton, 1870. Gesta Pontificium, Rolls Series, 52, London

ABSTRACT The word ‘keep’ has been misunderstood, but our appreciation of the entities which the word denotes is in still worse confusion. This paper attempts to outline the various mistakes which we make in trying to bring together under one term a series of buildings with only feeble link between them. RÉSUMÉ Le mot ‘donjon’ a été mal compris, mais notre appréciation de la réalité que recouvre ce mot est encore plus confuse. Cet article tente d’exposer les grandes lignes des diverses erreurs que nous faisons en essayant de rassembler sous le même vocable une série d’édifices qui n’ont que quelques points communs entre eux. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Das Wort keep ist hier misverstanden worden, aber was wir unter diesem Wort verstehen, führt noch zu einer viel grösseren Verwirrung. Dieser Artikel versucht die verschiedenen Fehler zusammenzufassen die entstehen, wenn wir probieren eine Serie von Gebäuden, die nur wenig miteinander verbunden sind, mit einem einfachen Ausdruck zu beschreiben. Acknowledgements My thanks are owing to Edward Impey and Gwyn Meirion-Jones for inspiring the original discussion. Bibliography Bates, C J 1891. Border Holds of Northumberland, Newcastle upon Tyne Becke, A F 1815 (1995 ed). Napoleon and Waterloo: the Emperor’s Campaign with the Armée du Nord, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA Braun, H 1935. ‘Newark Castle’, Trans Thoroton Soc, 39, 53–91 Brown, R A 1986. Rochester Castle, English Heritage Caesar, De Bello Gallico Clark, G T 1884. Medieval Military Architecture, London Coad, J G 1982. ‘Excavations at Castle Acre Castle, Norfolk, 1972–7: country house and castle of the Norman earls of Surrey’, Archaeol J, 139, 138– 302 Crouch, D 1990. William Marshall: Court Career and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire, London Dixon, P forthcoming. ‘The impact of the White Tower on the 12th-century donjon’ in Impey, The White Tower Dixon, P and Lott, B 1993. ‘The courtyard and the tower: contexts and symbols in the development of late medieval great houses’, J Brit Archaeol Assoc, 146, 93–101

13

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

14

Palatium et castrum en France du Nord (fin IXe – début XIIIe siècle) par

Annie Renoux Historiens et archéologues s’accordent à penser qu’en France du Nord (au sens large), les principaux séjours des rois et des grands de l’aristocratie, à la vocation politique et résidentielle, glissent du palatium au castrum. Le processus s’engage dans le dernier tiers du IXe et au Xe siècle et connaît une revitalisation à la fin du XIIe – début du XIIIe siècle lorsque le palais, dans le cadre des forteresses à superficie réduite, paraît sur le plan morphologique de plus en plus subordonné au château. Cette double assertion n’est pas dénuée de fondements mais elle demande à être explicitée et nuancée tant dans le domaine théorique (celui des concepts) que pratique (celui des réalisations concrètes). La réalité est plus complexe et connaît des niveaux d’appréciation différents qui évoluent au fil des siècles.1

monumentale aula, à usage essentiellement publique, et comporte un ensemble plus modeste, à la fois privé et publique, la (ou les) camera(e). Le pôle religieux est articulé sur l’église éventuellement dotée du statut de collégiale. Le noyau économique à vocation de services est plus rarement évoqué mais son rôle pratique est évident. Il peut être logé dans une cour annexe. Chez les grands du IXe siècle, pour autant qu’on le sache, il n’y a pas – stricto sensu – de palais. Tout tourne autour de la villa-curtis et surtout de la domus-aula qui constitue le point névralgique de leur pouvoir. Mais les détenteurs de regna périphériques, à l’autorité forte et bien individualisée, ont eux toute latitude pour développer des palatia. Les crises et les difficultés qui accablent la royauté aux Xe et XIe siècles n’affectent pas en profondeur le concept palatial. Les Capétiens gardent une vision très carolingienne du phénomène. Le pouvoir royal reste ancré sur le palatium, tant dans la théorie que dans la pratique. Le concept garde sa valeur fondatrice et légitimante.

PALATIUM ET CASTRUM DU IXe AU XIe SIÈCLE: LES BASES CAROLINGIENNES LE CONCEPT DOMINANT DE PALATIUM Au IXe siècle, chez les empereurs et les rois, le concept dominant en matière de lieux de pouvoir est celui de palatium. La définition du palais carolingien est nourrie de traditions antiques et byzantines mais non exempte d’innovations. C’est pour les souverains un concept fondateur et légitimant qui a une double valeur pratique et symbolique. Sur le plan social, administratif et institutionnel, c’est l’entourage et le gouvernement même du monarque avec ses différents services. Sur le plan concret, ce sont des localités et des centres de gouvernement et de villégiature réservés au détenteur de l’auctoritas et articulés sur un ensemble de bâtiments prestigieux conçus pour l’exercice du pouvoir et sa représentation. Il n’y a pas, en ces temps de monarchie itinérante, un palais mais plusieurs qui forment un réseau structuré et évolutif de lieux de pouvoir, essentiellement ruraux, que les souverains utilisent au sein d’un regnum en mutation pour fonder et légitimer leur puissance. Sur le plan intellectuel et religieux, le développement d’une monarchie sacrale fait plus que jamais du palatium un espace sacré réservé à un saint personnage, l’empereur ou le roi. École de cadres, centre culturel, foyer de justice et de paix, c’est une anticipation du paradis et une étape vers le palais céleste. Topographie et architecture reflètent ces conceptions. Le palais est un espace clos, où la porte joue un rôle majeur (Attigny). Deux pôles fondamentaux s’y détachent. Le pôle officiel laïque est centré sur une vaste et 1

RAPPORTS AVEC LE CASTRUM Quels sont ses rapports avec le castrum ? Les deux notions ont en fait, originellement, une certaine antinomie. Divers témoignages narratifs l’attestent mais il nous faut sortir ici du cadre géographique retenu. Au Xe siècle, par exemple, Liutprand de Crémone, alors en ambassade à Constantinople (968), oppose nettement l’ancien empereur Constantin, un homme de paix qui reste dans son palais où il fait régner la justice en recherchant l’amitié des nations, et le basileus Nicéphore (Phocas), un homme de guerre, qui pour cette raison fuit son palais comme la peste et fonde son pouvoir sur la terreur et le fracas des armes. L’homme des palais n’est pas l’homme des châteaux. Une appréciation qui se prolonge tardivement en milieu ecclésiastique. Au XIIe siècle, nombreux, en France, sont les ecclésiastiques qui tonnent contre les développements militarisés qui se greffent aux demeures épiscopales. Rois et évêques sont des gens de paix qui font régner la justice humaine et divine autrement que par l’emploi des armes. On a là deux conceptions du pouvoir. Ceci dit, on aurait tort, même au niveau des affirmations de principes, de pousser trop loin le raisonnement. De nombreuses allusions tempèrent l’assertion. Les palais des IXe et Xe siècles sont des écoles de cadres où ‘l’on pratique autant les disciplines scolaires que les disciplines militaires’.2 Dans la seconde moitié du Xe siècle, Bouchard Ier, comte de Vendôme, est instruit

Pour réduire l’apparat critique, on se permettra de renvoyer à un article synthétique, abondamment référencé: Renoux 1996; voir aussi les articles de R-H Bautier et T Zotz.

2

15

Propos tenu par Heric d’Auxerre à Charles le Chauve (Vita Germani, Poet. Aevi Carol., III, 429; cités par Riché 1976, 165.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

dans l’aula d’Hugues le Grand des ‘choses célestes et militaires’.3 Sur le plan concret, les palais royaux et impériaux du IXe siècle peuvent être à l’égal des villae solidement entourés par de robustes clôtures (Annapes). Il en est de même chez les grands que la loi salique autorise, dès les premiers temps du haut Moyen Âge, à construire des palissades autour de leurs curtes. Et les sources, tant écrites qu’archéologiques démontrent l’existence, à côté des cités fortifiées, d’enceintes rurales souvent mais non exclusivement dotées d’une valeur refuge. L’évolution est préparée de longue date.

pouvoir sacré et face à la féodalisation accrue de la société. Il y a bien ici, au niveau conceptuel, passage du palatium au castrum dans le courant du XIe siècle (après 1066?). Quant à la plupart des autres membres de la haute aristocratie et aux lignages de rang moyen qui se hissent localement au premier plan, ils ne sont (apparemment) pas touchés par le phénomène palatial, tel du moins qu’il a été défini. La diffusion du concept ne gagne pas les sphères inférieures du pouvoir. Les seigneurs de moindre rang n’ont que faire des palais qui sont pour eux porteurs d’une charge symbolique dénuée d’intérêt. Leur puissance repose sans ambiguïté sur le château.

PALATIUM ET CASTRUM DU IXe AU XIe SIÈCLE: L’ÉVOLUTION

LA MENACE DU CASTRUM La seconde des menaces qui touche le palais est bien en effet celle du castrum. Elle est précocement surmontée.

Les traditions carolingiennes restent vivaces et le concept palatial garde ses contours. Mais le palatium de l’An mil n’est plus tout à fait celui de l’an 800; il a perdu sur le plan social, administratif et politique beaucoup de sa force d’impact. Comme dirait Adalbéron de Laon (†1030), dans son Poème au roi Robert, rien ne va plus, le palais est sens dessus dessous. Le concept est miné de l’intérieur par les ambitions des grands et l’arrogance de certains ecclésiastiques. Mais il est aussi menacé de l’extérieur dans son existence même et ce tant sur le plan théorique que pratique.

La montée en puissance du château Dans les faits, la montée en puissance du château est aisément perceptible dès la seconde moitié et surtout la fin du IXe siècle. Dans les diplômes royaux, même si les localisations palatiales arrivent souvent en premier, les localisations castrales s’accroissent dès le règne d’Eudes (888) et se maintiennent ensuite aux Xe–XIe siècles. Le report vers les cités confirme ce besoin de fortifications. Les rois y bénéficient de l’enceinte urbaine (Laon) et des milices épiscopales (Reims). Les sources narratives le montrent encore plus éloquemment et élargissent l’information à l’ensemble de la haute aristocratie. Compiègne est fortifiée, dès 877, par le roi Charles le Chauve. Laon est dotée dès le deuxième quart du Xe siècle d’une arx par le comte de Vermandois etc. Ces faits sont notoires. Deux courants sont à l’origine de ces travaux de fortification: un courant profane, qui puise ses sources dans un passé ancestral et ses raisons d’être dans la multiplication des agressions extérieures (Vikings...) et des guerres privées, et un courant politico-religieux très intellectualisé. Tout un arrière-plan conceptuel prend acte de l’évolution et la facilite. Il est mis en place au IXe siècle et se renforce au Xe siècle. Dans la conception augustinienne du pouvoir carolingien, l’empereur doit construire ici bas la Cité de Dieu. Mais la Cité terrestre est menacée par ces forces du mal que sont les Scandinaves et autres envahisseurs. Il faut militariser le sacré. Le mouvement est bien dégagé en milieu monastique, mais pas seulement. Les monastères attaqués par ces suppôts du diable que sont les Vikings peuvent et doivent se fortifier tout comme la Jérusalem Céleste de l’Apocalypse s’entoure de murs et de tours pour se protéger des méchants. La protection est à la fois spirituelle et matérielle. Dans l’iconographie, ces enceintes collectives régulièrement flanquées, de type urbain, sont cernées de guerriers qui se préparent à l’assaut. Le mouvement gagne la sphère palatiale, autre matérialisation de la Jérusalem Céleste. Le palais, espace sacré, territoire de paix et d’asile, peut et doit se fortifier. L’assimilation est sans heurt au niveau conceptuel.

L’INSTAURATION DE RÉSEAUX PALATIAUX PRINCIERS Avec la mise en place et l’essor des principautés territoriales, dès la fin du IXe et au Xe siècle, la première de ces menaces est l’instauration de réseaux palatiaux princiers concurrents. En France du Nord, un prince au moins y a sciemment et intentionnellement recouru, c’est le duc de Normandie qui utilise le système à la fin du Xe et une partie du XIe siècle pour fonder sa puissance dans le cadre d’un regnum où il exerce des pouvoirs régaliens particulièrement étendus en s’appuyant, entre autres, sur des traditions carolingiennes. Mais, en fait, comme la puissance normande ne conteste nullement la royauté, ce réseau ducal, articulé sur Fécamp, Rouen et Bayeux, est plus complémentaire que concurrent de celui du roi dont la légitimité, et notamment la légitimité religieuse, se trouve ainsi raffermie. Et les Capétiens, dans ce contexte, s’accrochent plus que jamais à la notion de palais qui renforce cette sacralisation refuge vers laquelle il se tourne. Un simple report aux localisations d’actes aide à le montrer.4 Si l’on s’en tient aux concepts, on ne peut réellement parler ici d’un glissement du palatium au castrum. Chez les princes normands par contre, oui, car ils abandonnent rapidement le système palatial. Il n’y a plus en Normandie, passé le règne de Guillaume le Conquérant, de palais au sens carolingien du terme. Les ducs se sont vite rendus compte de l’inanité de la notion dans un contexte qui ne leur donne sur le sol continental aucun 3 4

Saint-Maur 1892. Renoux 1992.

16

Annie Renoux: Palatium et castrum en France du Nord (fin IXe – début XIIIe siècle)

Alliance du palatium et du castrum

Il a pris des formes diverses dont il serait imprudent de prétendre rendre totalement compte, étant donné les dramatiques lacunes de la documentation. Deux filiations émergent et se recoupent. La première puise ses racines et ses modèles dans les ouvrages fortifiés des temps anciens et conduit, notamment, à l’adjonction de tours à vocation essentiellement défensive (Douai). La seconde est à replacer dans le contexte socio-politique du moment. Elle est simple dans ses fondements et ses motivations mais plus complexe dans ses réalisations concrètes. Elle traduit la volonté de fortifier les pôles majeurs à forte valeur symbolique et pratique du séjour noble antérieur, tel que la porte, l’aula et surtout d’une manière plus générale la domus. La fortification des accès conduit notamment aux tours-portes alors si prisées et déjà évoquées, mais finalement assez peu documentées pour ces hautes époques. Plus importante est la militarisation de la domus. C’est le phénomène clef, car la domus – demeure du dominus – est le cœur public et privé du séjour et le point de cristallisation ancestral du pouvoir noble. Le fait est bien connu, archéologiquement parlant, depuis les fouilles de Doué-la-Fontaine et celles qui les ont précédées (Allemagne). Il est parfaitement et précocement répercuté dans la documentation écrite dès la fin du IXe siècle (casa firmissima) et mieux encore aux Xe et XIe siècles où les turres sont évoquées par des périphrases telles que domus defensabilis, domus munitissima, domus cum summo aedificio, domus [...] principalis et defensiva, etc. Les procédés utilisés pour rendre la maison munitissima et defensabilis sont diversifiés et peuvent se combiner. On en évoquera simplement deux car ils sont intimement liés au sujet. Le premier est celui de la conversion de la domus en turris qui aboutit à une sorte de fusion dans le cadre du ‘donjon-palais’. Doué-laFontaine où l’on obture vers le milieu du Xe siècle le rez-de-chaussée et où l’on surélève la demeure d’au moins un étage en est le parfait exemple (Figure 3). Les constructeurs sont ici tributaires du modèle de base, celui de la maison noble. La filiation contribue à expliquer les caractéristiques de ces premières turres. Sur le plan fonctionnel, la domus a une vocation polyvalente et assure des fonctions publiques et privées qui ne sont pas très bien dégagées l’une de l’autre, ce qui entraîne la réalisation de blocs composites. Sur le plan morphologique, pour autant qu’on le sache, car on manque dramatiquement d’informations, le séjour aristocratique des IXe –X e siècles ne se développe guère en élévation, et ce à la fois pour des raisons techniques et financières mais pas seulement. Le renforcement des parties hautes est l’un des objectifs majeurs que les données écrites mettent

Au niveau pratique, cette alliance du palatium et du castrum ne brise pas les schémas antérieurs, mais elle vient les enrichir. La fortification du palais est précoce, même si elle n’est pas constante. Elle affecte deux niveaux. (i) Dans le cas le plus fréquent, on fortifie la clôture, c’est le palatium in castrum où la porte continue à jouer un rôle majeur. Caen, résidence des ducs de Normandie, offre par exemple pour le XIe siècle, avec sa tour-porte, une bonne illustration du phénomène (Figure 1). Ces ensembles peuvent éventuellement reprendre les articulations anciennes en curtis-curticula lorsqu’il y a une basse-cour à vocation annexe, mais cela n’est pas systématique (Caen n’en a pas). La fortification renforce l’image du palais en lui donnant plus que jamais l’allure d’un microcosme qui s’impose aux regards et aux consciences. Deux exemples, ceux de la résidence des comtes de Flandre à Bruges, vers le milieu du Xe siècle, et du palais des ducs de Normandie à Fécamp, au tout début du XIe siècle, démontrent bien chez les grands la volonté précoce d’utiliser l’apparat militaire pour fonder et exalter le pouvoir princier (Figure 2). Le travail de planification qui préside à leur élaboration reflète à la perfection la force et les ambitions de leurs commanditaires. Leur plan est rigoureux: quadrangulaire pour Bruges et elliptique pour Fécamp. L’aire intérieure est scindée en deux par un axe routier qui relie deux portes diamétralement opposées. L’une des moitiés ainsi délimitée est à usage laïque (palais, par exemple) et l’autre à usage religieux (collégiale, monastère). La courtine est puissante et, à Fécamp, elle est même sans doute assez impressionnante pour l’époque puisque le très ample talus en terre est renforcé d’une muraille et d’au moins une tour de flanquement. L’ensemble matérialise parfaitement le programme politicoreligieux qui est alors celui des ducs. Il y a bien là ce que l’on peut appeler une ‘castralisation’ du palais, avec en arrière-plan le modèle urbain. Programmes castral et palatial vont ici de pair et s’épaulent. (ii)

Dans le second cas de figure, qui peut interférer avec le premier, on insert dans le complexe noble une turris, au sens médiéval du terme, c’est à dire soit un donjon, soit un point fort (tour et défense complémentaire). Le phénomène est évoqué dans les sources écrites dès la fin du IXe siècle (Compiègne) et surtout à partir du Xe siècle (Château-Thierry, Laon, Rouen, par exemple) et il est archéologiquement attesté pour le Xe siècle (Château-Thierry?, Doué-la-Fontaine, Douai) mais, en l’état actuel des connaissances, il est moins répandu que le précédent.

17

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Les données de la documentation écrite renforcent l’hypothèse. Dans ce domaine des lieux de pouvoir, le hall y reste au premier plan talonné par la camera. En effet, très concrètement, dans les actes royaux et princiers du XIe siècle ce sont les localisations in aula et in camera qui se multiplient et non celles in turre qui sont excessivement rares. Chez les grands, la tour n’a pas la même valeur fondatrice. Au moment où l’administration des magnats prend corps et où les châteaux acquièrent, pour les plus importants d’entre eux, valeur de pôle de commandement politique, les rois et les princes mettent en avant dans leurs principaux séjours l’aula. Le fait a des parallèles, voire des répercussions, en archéologie. C’est au XIe siècle que les grands et vastes salles oblongues commencent à se multiplier (Angers, Tours) et à se dégager plus nettement des camerae. Mais l’optique est sans doute plus spécifiquement propre aux grands de l’aristocratie, car il est certain que dans les sphères moyennes et inférieures du groupe l’élément militaire vient nettement au premier plan pour exprimer les fondements de ces pouvoirs en cours de définition. Le modèle de la fusion ne s’impose donc pas. Le grand donjon-palais (avec hall intégré) ne supplante pas les aulae traditionnelles. Le castrum n’absorbe pas le palais. Mais l’utilisation du répertoire castral pour valoriser le palatium n’en est pas moins évidente. Palais et château s’épaulent pour fonder et affirmer l’éclat du pouvoir souverain. Seulement, dans une certaine mesure, c’est plutôt le castrum qui est subordonné au palatium.

en valeur à l’occasion de la construction ou de l’aménagement de ces turres: on surélève et on ajoute des éléments défensifs au complexe de base (Cambrai, Laon, Rouen). Mais en fait, ces attestations sont en elles-mêmes autant d’aveux. Sans doute a-t-il fallu un certain temps pour que ne s’impose le type du gros donjon barlong à plusieurs étages, tel que le précoce exemple de Loches nous le restitue dès le début(?) du XIe siècle. Mais encore faudrait-il posséder suffisamment d’exemples pour étayer l’argumentation car que dire, par exemple, de l’élévation de la turris de Doué-la-Fontaine sinon qu’elle intègre moins un étage ce qui n’exclut nullement la possibilité de niveaux supérieurs! Le second procédé utilisé pour rendre la domus-aula ‘défendable’, celui de la juxtaposition, a laissé peu de spécimens bien attestés pour ces temps anciens, mais le cas de l’aula des comtes d’Anjou à Tours (c 1044) constitue une notable exception (Figure 4). La turris carrée qui flanque le hall y est dotée d’une faible valeur défensive et sert sans doute de camera. Le message puise ici essentiellement dans le répertoire symbolique. On assiste donc à une militarisation des symboles et des bornes carolingiens du pouvoir et le répertoire défensif est d’emblée utilisé pour valoriser le ‘palais’, mais cette irruption castrale ne modifie pas la nature des lieux fondamentalement utilisés pour symboliser et exercer le pouvoir. Dans les séjours majeurs, le grand donjon barlong à vocation aulique, privée et religieux ne supplante pas en la matière l’aula. Du moins se doit-on de poser la question. C’est particulièrement net chez un certain nombre de princes qui, comme les ducs de Normandie, n’ont guère recouru, dans les premiers temps, aux vastes donjons. La tour de Rouen est sans doute au Xe siècle un bâtiment précurseur, mais en l’état actuel des connaissances les souverains normands du XIe siècle n’ont pas suivi cette voie. Et de plus, à Rouen, la turris est accompagnée d’une aula évoquée dès 1074; ce n’est donc pas le seul et unique pôle de commandement. D’autres chefs de principautés, comme les comtes d’Anjou et de Blois, ont par contre, il est vrai, utilisé précocement et abondamment ce type castral (Doué-la-Fontaine au Xe siècle; Loches au début(?) du XIe siècle, par exemple). Mais, pour en tirer des conclusions, il faudrait être sûr que dans ces ensembles la présence du donjon exclut celle du hall. Ce qui est loin d’être certain. A Blois, au XIe siècle, il y a une aula à côté de la turris. La tour ne supprime pas obligatoirement la salle noble. Dans les grands ensembles à vocation de ‘capitale’, c’est sans doute souvent plus vers une complémentarité qu’un antagonisme, ou une exclusion, qu’il convient de se tourner.

UN TOURNANT: LE XIIe SIÈCLE LE XIIe SIÈCLE EST UN MOMENT CLEF DANS L’ÉVOLUTION Le palatium en pleine mutation Au niveau des concepts, les lettrés de l’entourage royal usent toujours des mêmes déclarations de principe. Le palatium conserve ses contours et ses attributs antérieurs et la création des palais champenois de Troyes et Provins montre bien que la notion garde tout son prestige aux yeux de certains princes territoriaux d’accession tardive. Mais le déclin s’amorce. Il est aisément perceptible dans les localisations d’actes royaux. Les localisations in palatio déclinent sous Louis VI (†1137) et Louis VII (†1180) et cessent totalement sous Philippe Auguste (†1223). Et, hormis les comtes de Champagne, aucun prince n’utilise le système pour étayer ses pouvoirs renaissants. Le concept dans sa version traditionnelle est passablement démodé. En fait, il est en pleine mutation. A ceci plusieurs raisons. La réforme grégorienne réduit sa légitimité religieuse. La notion tend à se laïciser, si bien que la construction palatiale peut s’étendre à n’importe qui. Les 18

Annie Renoux: Palatium et castrum en France du Nord (fin IXe – début XIIIe siècle)

aspects morphologiques passent au premier plan. Le palais n’est qu’un luxueux symbole de richesse dont la réalisation n’est qu’une affaire de moyens. Les témoignages écrits abondent. A Angers, au coeur du séjour comtal se trouve ‘une très vaste demeure digne de porter le nom de palais’. A Noyers (Bourgogne), le château épiscopal comporte ‘un palais d’une grande beauté [...] c’est à dire une agréable résidence seigneuriale’.5 Parallèlement, le redressement capétien, de plus en plus appuyé sur des pratiques et des conceptions féodales, l’amorce d’une sédentarisation de l’administration et les mutations institutionnelles qui s’ébauchent et conduiront à l’état moderne font perdre au concept palatial, en milieu royal, son rôle probant et fondateur. La monarchie mise de moins en moins sur le palais et de plus en plus sur le castrum. L’heure est à l’épanouissement de la turris. Au XIIIe siècle, le terme de palais sert encore à désigner la demeure royale mais on tend à lui préférer domus. Il sert à désigner les bâtiments qui abritent les séances judiciaires et financières (parlement), mais ce n’est nullement systématique. Ces mutations contribuent à expliquer la diffusion palatiale dans des milieux aristocratiques de moindre volée (Étienne de Garlande, chancelier de Louis VI). Mais cette extension reste malgré tout limitée. Les détenteurs de mottes n’érigent pas de palais. Les milieux de la petite et moyenne aristocratie ne sont guère touchés: non pas qu’ils ne construisent pas de halls mais ces bâtiments, pour autant qu’on le sache du moins, ne reçoivent pas le label palatial. C’est une question de moyens et de réalisme politique. Financièrement, nombreux sont les seigneurs touchés par les difficultés, ce qui rend difficile l’érection de vastes aulae et, politiquement, la vie des châtelains tourne autour du castrum et du donjon plus aptes à symboliser et à concrétiser leur pouvoirs banaux. Mais, à un niveau supérieur, il est certain que les bâtisses mises en oeuvre vers 1225–1230 par le sire de Coucy, qui n’est pourtant pas un prince, sont assimilables à un palatium.

et dépend de la nature du séjour, des événements qui l’affectent et des princes qui les gèrent. L’aula occupe nettement le devant de la scène comme cadre de la vie publique. Morphologiquement, on arrive on stade de la maturité avec la diffusion, quasiment standardisée, d’un type de grand hall rectangulaire de 30m–40m de long, sur 10m–15m de large (Caen, Fécamp, Isle-Aumont, Provins, Troyes, par exemple) (Figure 5). Ce qui n’exclut nullement ni les médiocres superficies (Senlis: 16m x 8m), ni les volumes exceptionnels (Poitiers, vers 1200: 50m x 17m; Le Mans, 31m x 23m). Quantitativement, les salles à étage l’emportent nettement (Caen, Isle-Aumont, Lillebonne, Provins, Senlis, Troyes, par exemple), mais l’Ouest plantagenêt, notamment, offre quelques modèles de plain-pied qui pourraient dénoter une influence anglaise (Le Mans, Poitiers). Il n’y a pas lieu de s’attarder sur ces faits déjà connus. L’épanouissement progressif de la fonction privative est bien marqué dans la documentation tant écrite qu’archéologique mais, sur le terrain, l’identification précise de ces divers locaux reste aléatoire. Quelle est, par exemple, à Senlis, la destination respective des pièces qui jouxtent ce que l’on peut raisonnablement considérer comme l’aula? Il y aurait quelque risque à y voir une préfiguration de la chambre de parement. D’une manière générale, la seule camera clairement identifiable est celle du roi ou du prince car elle a volontiers, en plus d’éléments morphologiques et décoratifs propres à la mettre en valeur, un contact direct avec la grande salle. Sinon, il est probable que les fonctions de ces pièces évoluent en fonction des périodes considérées et des occupants. La décoration – peut-être plus abondante que dans le hall – y présente des caractéristiques sensiblement analogues. Des éléments de confort tels que cheminées, vitres etc., sont signalés dans les textes et parfois même attestés sur le terrain. Ces locaux demeurent, comme aux siècles antérieurs, proches de la salle (Provins, Senlis, Troyes) ou à faible distance (Caen). Les plans d’ensemble reprennent les schémas d’organisation antérieurs en offrant des assemblages compacts (Troyes), dispersés (Caen) ou, en fait, le plus souvent mixtes. En l’état actuel des recherches, les agencements les plus en vogues sont en effet ceux qui se présentent sous la forme d’un agglomérat de bâtisses (Angers) (Figure 6). D’identiques tendances organisatrices se font jour au niveau de l’assemblage des édifices majeurs. Aula, camera et capella s’articulent en ‘L’ (Angers), en ‘T’ (Provins) ou bien ils se développent linéairement (Senlis). De vagues ébauches de plans sur cours se font jour

Ces évolutions sont perceptibles dans les textes et sur le terrain Sur le plan topographique et morphologique, les effets de ces évolutions sont perceptibles dans les textes et sur le terrain puisque d’assez nombreux vestiges sont encore conservés ou ont été exhumés. Mais il ne faudrait bien sûr pas considérer qu’ils suffisent à eux seuls à expliquer les mutations qui s’opèrent. D’autres facteurs interviennent, économiques et financiers, mais aussi techniques. (i)

5

Les tendances amorcées antérieurement s’épanouissent au XIIe et début du XIIIe siècle. On note une diversification et une spécialisation plus marquée des locaux, dans un contexte où les soucis de monumentalité et la recherche de l’effet décoratif sont mieux affirmés. Mais tout est relatif

Duru 1850.

19

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

les grands, qui pendant longtemps ont eu des difficultés à en contrôler les renforcements, sont perpétuellement poussés à des surenchères pour marquer leur statut. C’est l’une des raisons qui expliquent l’essor de ces murailles de plus en plus hautes et de mieux en mieux flanquées (Rouen). A Fécamp, par exemple, le foisonnement de tours qui est mis sur pied dès 1150–1160 a une évidente valeur défensive, mais il rappelle aussi opportunément, à une époque où la réalisation de ces flanquements n’est plus l’apanage des grands, que leur multiplication le reste assez largement, ne serait-ce que pour des raisons financières. Le poids de la courtine dans la mise en scène et l’affirmation du pouvoir souverain est notable et son rôle ne cesse de se renforcer avec l’accroissement de ses capacités défensives et symboliques. Les puissantes murailles de Louis IX à Angers (c 1230) suffisent à le rappeler. Le point d’orgue est atteint dès la seconde moitié du XIIe et le début du XIIIe siècle avec la diffusion des châteaux géométriques, à superficie réduite, qui intègrent en symbiose palais et fortification et développent de redoutables courtines. Ces développements témoignent sans ambiguïté du haut statut social (ou des énormes ambitions) et des grands moyens du commanditaire face, notamment, aux maisons fortes qui n’en offrent que de pâles imitations. L’intégration castrale dans le schéma palatial met pour un temps, au premier plan, le rempart et ses flanquements. On pourrait y voir, à tout prendre, l’expression morphologique d’un développement des structures étatiques face au modèle de gouvernement féodal et familial, mais ce serait oublier que le modèle de la tour privative, greffée ou non à la salle, n’est pas mort (Montélimar), tout comme celui du gros donjon-palais (Vincennes, par exemple).

(Caen), mais il faut attendre le dernier tiers du XIIe siècle et la diffusion des châteaux à superficie réduite et plan régulier, pour voir se concrétiser réellement le phénomène (Le Louvre) (Figure 7). (ii)

La féodalisation de plus en plus accentuée de la société et des pouvoirs a pour conséquence une utilisation de plus en plus marquée de l’apparat et du répertoire militaire dans les constructions et les programmes ostentatoires de l’architecture palatiale. Le phénomène entraîne une double valorisation: celle du donjon et celle de la courtine où l’on retrouve un identique souci de monumentalité avec la recherche de l’effet de masse et de l’élévation et le développement de la surenchère défensive. Le phénomène n’est pas nouveau; les tendances antérieures s’épanouissent, se précisent et se systématisent. L’intensification de la construction des donjons est un fait notoire qui ne réclame pas de grands développements. Elle est très marquée, en secteur anglo-normand notamment, avec la diffusion des gros donjons barlongs sous le duc Henri Ier (†1135) (Figure 5). Elle est aussi sensible, en milieu capétien, sous les règnes des rois Louis VI et Louis VII, et confirmée par la suite sous Philippe Auguste, avec la multiplication des tours circulaires de moindre ampleur. Le mouvement a une évidente portée pratique mais il a aussi une haute valeur symbolique. Il concrétise le poids que prennent les pratiques et les options féodales des gouvernements princiers et royaux. Et la préférence nettement affichée par Philippe Auguste pour les tours cylindriques face aux donjons barlongs anglo-normands traduit au mieux, en exaltant la fonction militaire et féodale de ces bastions, la victoire féodale des Capétiens sur les Plantagenêts. Les donjons se multiplient et deviennent quasiment une constante dans ces ensembles palatiaux, mais leur insertion ne brise pas les agencements de base. Les donjons-palais ne supplantent toujours pas l’aula; ainsi par exemple, Arques, Caen et Rouen sont-ils dotés parallèlement de halls. L’intégration se fait souplement. Les dispositions adoptées prolongent celles des Xe–XIe siècles. On retrouve les trois agencements antérieurs. Le schéma de la fusion est à son apogée avec l’essor des bastions barlongs de type anglo-normand. La dissociation, qui renvoie aux tours défensives isolées, de format plus réduit, se retrouve en maints endroits (Paris, Senlis). La juxtaposition, qui accole turris et aula, est plus fréquente chez les évêques (Le Mans) mais on la retrouve aussi en milieu laïque (Isle-Aumont). Parallèlement, la courtine gagne sans cesse, au fil des siècles, en puissance et en efficacité et

CONCLUSIONS Palatium et castrum sont précocement et intimement liés chez les rois et les grands de l’aristocratie, mais la question est à moduler et tout dépend des réalités que l’on place derrière ces deux mots. Il y a différents niveaux de lecture et l’évolution tient compte non seulement des progrès économiques et techniques – en matière de poliorcétique par exemple – mais aussi des mutations socio-politiques qui affectent la structure de ces pouvoirs nobles. La castralisation du palais est inscrite dans la vision augustinienne du pouvoir impérial carolingien et elle est patente, dans les faits, dès la fin du IXe et au Xe siècle. On fortifie la clôture et on adjoint des turres. Mais le processus ne brise pas réellement les schémas antérieurs même s’il introduit de nouvelles données et de nouveaux symboles. Au niveau conceptuel, la diffusion du palais reste longtemps limitée aux sphères impériales et royales, car le terme a une signification précise et restrictive. Les Capétiens, suivis en cela, pour un temps, par quelques 20

Annie Renoux: Palatium et castrum en France du Nord (fin IXe – début XIIIe siècle)

palatial functions, nor small keeps with a strong military value, nor towers with mainly a private function, ever quite succeeded in supplanting the civilian and independent aulae as principal symbols and privileged centres of the exercise of power. Military fortifications were used at an early stage to support and enhance the authority of the magnate but they were not necessarily a dominant feature and, during the tenth and eleventh centuries, the castrum sometimes came second in importance to the palace. The technical progress and evolutions which marked the twelfth century ruined the traditional concept of the palace. It became nothing more than a vast and sumptuous building, which represented authority and whose construction was legitimately possible to all those who could afford it. This was the time for the blossoming of aulae realizations. Meanwhile, the increased ‘feudalization’ of power encouraged military developments of great noble residences. As a result, two architectural features stood out from the rest : the keep and the curtain which set off the palace.

grands princes, en font le point d’ancrage de leur pouvoir. Et d’une manière générale, dans les grands séjours de la haute aristocratie, ni le vaste donjon barlong aux fonctions palatiales, ni le petit donjon à forte valeur militaire, ni la tour au rôle essentiellement privatif, n’évincent totalement l’aula civile, indépendante, comme symbole majeur et comme base d’exercice privilégiée du pouvoir. L’apparat militaire est précocement employé pour étayer et valoriser l’autorité des grands mais son règne n’est pas sans partage et, d’une certaine façon, aux Xe et XIe siècles, le castrum est comme subordonné au palais. Les progrès et les évolutions qui affectent le XIIe siècle ruinent le concept palatial traditionnel. Le palais n’est qu’un vaste et somptueux bâtiment représentatif de l’autorité, dont la construction peut légitimement s’étendre à tous ceux qui en ont les moyens. L’heure est à l’épanouissement morphologique des aulae. Parallèlement, la féodalisation accrue des pouvoirs valorise les développements militarisés du grand séjour noble. D’où un double épanouissement: celui du donjon dont le caractère féodal est bien affirmé par des souverains comme le duc de Normandie, Henri Ier, et le roi Philippe Auguste, mais dont la présence n’éradique toujours pas celle du hall; celui de la courtine avec l’essor des châteaux à superficie réduite qui exprime, en la revitalisant, l’association – voire la fusion – entre castrum et palatium. Le château sert d’écrin au palais. La mise en valeur est réciproque et concourt à renforcer l’image et l’impact des pouvoirs souverains.

RÉSUMÉ Historiens et archéologues s’accordent à penser qu’en France du Nord (au sens large), les principaux séjours des rois et des grands de l’aristocratie, à la vocation politique et résidentielle, glissent du palatium au castrum. Le processus s’engage dans le dernier tiers du IXe et au Xe siècle et connaît une revitalisation à la fin du XIIe–début du XIIIe siècle lorsque le palais, dans le cadre des forteresses à superficie réduite, est comme assujetti au château. Cette double assertion n’est pas dénuée de fondements mais elle demande à être explicitée et nuancée tant dans le domaine théorique (celui des concepts) que pratique (celui des réalisations concrètes). La réalité est plus complexe et connaît des niveaux d’appréciation différents qui évoluent au fil des siècles. La castralisation du palais est inscrite dans la vision augustinienne du pouvoir impérial carolingien et elle est patente, dans les faits, dès la fin du IXe et au Xesiècle. On fortifie la clôture et on adjoint des turres. Mais le processus ne brise pas réellement les schémas antérieurs même s’il introduit de nouvelles données et de nouveaux symboles. Au niveau conceptuel, la diffusion du palais reste longtemps limitée aux sphères impériales et royales, car le terme a une signification précise et restrictive. Les Capétiens, suivis en cela, pour un temps, par quelques grands princes, en font le point d’ancrage de leur pouvoir. Et d’une manière générale, dans les séjours majeurs de la haute aristocratie, ni le vaste donjon barlong aux fonctions palatiales, ni le petit donjon à forte valeur militaire, ni la tour au rôle essentiellement privatif, n’évincent totalement l’aula civile, indépendante, comme symbole majeur et comme base d’exercice privilégiée du pouvoir. L’apparat militaire est précocement employé pour étayer et valoriser l’autorité des grands mais son règne n’est pas sans partage et, d’une certaine façon, aux Xe et XIe siècles, le castrum est comme subordonné au palais. Les progrès et les évolutions qui affectent le XIIe siècle ruinent le concept palatial traditionnel. Le palais

ABSTRACT Historians and archaeologists agree that in Northern France (north of the Loire) the chief residences of kings and great noblemen, for both political and residential reasons, moved from palatium to castrum. The process began during the third part of the ninth century and continued into the tenth century. In fact this process had become obvious by the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth century, when the palace — with the growth of geometrical fortresses — seemed rather more an annexe to the castle. This double assertion, although not without foundation, must be explained and qualified both in theory (concept) and in practice (concrete examples). The truth is more complex and different levels of appreciation have evolved over the centuries. The ‘castralization’ of the palace falls within the Augustinian vision of Carolingian imperial power ; it is obvious, on the ground, from the end of the ninth century and onwards into the tenth century. Enclosures were fortified and turres erected. However, the process did not really break with former practices although it introduced new themes and new symbols. At a conceptual level, the diffusion of the palace remained for a long time an imperial and royal prerogative for the term had a precise and restrictive meaning. For Capetians — who, for a time, were imitated by a few great princes — the palace was very much the focal point of their power. Generally speaking, among the chief residences of the upper echelons of the aristocracy, neither big rectangular keeps with

21

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

n’est plus qu’un vaste et somptueux bâtiment représentatif de l’autorité dont la construction peut légitimement s’étendre à tous ceux qui en ont les moyens. L’heure est à l’épanouissement morphologique des aulae. Parallèlement, la féodalisation accrue des pouvoirs valorise les développements militarisés du grand séjour noble. D’où un double épanouissement : celui du donjon et celui de la courtine qui sert d’écrin au palais.

zunehmenden Machts-‘Feudalisationen’ die militärischen Entwicklungen der grossartigen Adels-Residenzen. Daraus folgten zwei architektonische Merkmale die vom Rest herausragten: der Wohnturm und die Mauer die den Palast hervorhebten.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Historiker und Archäologen sind sich einig, dass sich im Norden von Frankreich (nördlich von der Loire) die Hauptresidenzen der Könige und des grossen Adels, aus politischen und auch aus wohnmässigen Gründen, vom palatium zum castrum Stil änderten. Dieser Prozess begann während des letzten Drittel des 9. Jh. und setzte bis ins 10. Jh. fort. Tatsächlich ist dieser Prozess am Ende des 12. Jh. und Beginn des 13. Jh. klar geworden, als der Palast – mit der Zunehmung von geometrischen Festungen mehr als Nebengebäude der Burg interpretiert wurde. Diese zweifache Behauptung, allerdings ohne Grundlage, muss theoretisch (mit einem Begriff) und in Praxis (mit konkreten Beispielen) erklärt und berechtigt werden. Die Wahrheit ist komplexer und verschiedene Stufen von Anerkennung haben sich während den letzten Jahrhunderten entwickelt. Die Umwandlung des Palastes in eine Festung greift auf die Zeit von der Augustiner Vision der Charlemagne-Kaisermacht zurück; dies ist archäologisch vom Ende des 9. Jh. bis und mitte des 10. Jh. klar gesehen. Mauern wurden gestärkt und turres errichtet. Jedoch änderte dieser Prozess die früheren Bräuche nicht, allerdings aber wurden dadurch neue Themen und Symbole eingeführt. Vorstellungshalber aber, wurde die Expansion des Palasts für längere Zeit als kaiserliche und königliche Vorrechte angesehen, da der Ausdruck einen ganz bestimmten und einschränkenden Begriff hatte. Da für die ‘Capetienner’, die eine zeitlang von ein paar grossartigen Prinzen imitiert wurden, der Palast eine der wichtigsten Rollen in ihrer Macht spielte. Im allgemeinen kann man sagen, dass unter den Hauptresidenzen der oberen Schicht der Aristokratie, weder grosse rechteckige Bergfriede mit palastartigen Funktionen, noch kleine Bergfriede mit einem starken militärischen Einfluss, noch Türme mit einer hauptsächlich privaten Funktion, je erfolgreich die zivilische und unabhängige aulae, die als Hauptsymbole und privilegierte Zentren der Macht galten, ersetzten. Militärische Festungen wurden von früh an als Unterstützung und Ergänzung der Autorität des Magnats benutzt, aber sie waren nicht unbedingt ein dominantes Merkmal und, während des 10. und 11. Jh., spielte das castrum manchmal sogar eine zweitrangige Rolle verglichen mit dem Palast. Der technische Prozess und die Entwicklungen die das 12. Jh. prägten, ruinierten das traditionelle Palastkonzept. Sie entwickelten sich in nichts anderes als gewaltige und prunkvolle Gebäude, die Autorität repräsentierten, und die sich diejenigen die es sich leisten konnten, rechtsmässig bauen lassen konnten. Während dieser Zeit blühten die aulae ‘Realisationen’. Mittlerweilen, förderten die

Duru, L-M 1850 (ed) Gesta pontificum Autissiodorensium, éd Bibliothèque historique de l’Yonne, collection de légendes, chroniques et documents divers, Auxerre, I, 388 seq (1183–1206) Renoux, A 1992. ‘Palais capétiens et normands à la fin du Xe et au début du XIe siècle’, in Parisse, M et Barral I Altet, X (eds), Le roi de France et son royaume autour de l’an Mil, Paris, 179–191 Renoux, A 1996. ‘Espaces et lieux de pouvoirs royaux et princiers en France (fin IXe – début XIIIe siècle)’ in Renoux, A (ed), Palais royaux et princiers au Moyen Age, Le Mans: Publication de l’Université du Mans, 17–42 Riché, P 1976. ‘Les représentations du palais dans les textes littéraires du haut Moyen Age’, Francia, 4, 165 Saint-Maur, Eudes de 1892. Vie de Bouchard le Vénérable, comte de Vendôme, de Corbeil, Melun et Paris (ed Ch Bourel de la Roncière), Paris, 5 Vita Germani, Poet. Aevi Carol., III, 429

Bibliographie

22

Annie Renoux: Palatium et castrum en France du Nord (fin IXe – début XIIIe siècle)

Figure 1 Reconstitution du château des ducs de Normandie à Caen au XIe siècle (M de Boüard, Le château de Caen, Caen, 1979)

Figure 2 Plan du château des ducs de Normandie à Fécamp au XIe siècle (A Renoux, Du palais ducal au palais de Dieu, éd du CNRS, 1991)

23

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 3 L’aula des comtes d’Anjou à Doué-la-Fontaine (Xe siècle) (M de Boüard, ‘De l’aula au donjon : les fouilles de la motte de La Chapelle à Doué-la-Fontaine (IXe–XIe siècles)’, Archéologie médiévale, III–IV, 1973–1974, 4–110)

Figure 4 L’aula des comtes d’Anjou à Tours au XIe siècle (H Galinié, ‘La résidence des comtes d’Anjou au XIe siècle’, Palais médiévaux (France-Belgique). 25 ans d’archéologie, Université du Mans, 1994, 93–94)

Figure 5 Reconstitution du château des ducs de Normandie à Caen au XIIe siècle (M de Boüard, Le château de Caen, Caen, 1979)

24

Annie Renoux: Palatium et castrum en France du Nord (fin IXe – début XIIIe siècle)

Figure 6 Le château d’Angers (château comtal des XIe–XIIe siècle en noir et château royal du XIIIe siècle en hachuré). 1 : aula ; 2 : chapelle ; 3 : ? entrée ; 4 : cuisine

Figure 7 Le Louvre (Musée et château en surimposition). 1 : entrées. 3 : rempart urbain

25

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

26

The Great Tower as Residence by

Pamela Marshall

The towering form of the donjon inspired architectural patrons throughout the Middle Ages1 and its influence continued into the Early Modern Age.2 However, it burgeoned during the twelfth century so it is to this and the preceding period that we should turn to gain some insight into its character. In England the very word donjon is unfamiliar, having been generally ousted by the later term keep,3 but the use of either word is elastic because of the enormous variation found within this class of monument. Donjons range in scale from look-out towers to small palaces, with a whole spectrum of structures coming somewhere in between. For decades the true nature of the donjon has eluded scholars, for very good reasons. Given the considerable expenditure invested in even the simplest of towers, they remain enigmatic structures; many were uninhabitable, and those that were must have been less than comfortable. Early observers, confronted by a bewildering array of buildings lumped loosely into the same category chose to interpret them along those lines which dominated castle studies in general.4 Seduced by the deliberate image of strength and impregnability projected by their thick walls and uncompromising elevations, there was a tendency to consider the donjon within the narrow confines of its usefulness in conflict. Rousing stories like that of the role of the great tower in the 1215 siege of Rochester,5 rare though they may be, fed the myth of last resort.6 This approach dies hard:7 as recently as 1985, a guidebook could be published stating that ‘it is important to remember that the keep was only ever intended to be used as a refuge in time of siege’.8 Yet despite their intimidating appearance, great towers were not well designed for resistance, passive or otherwise. A rare case of a tower designed to switch effectively from domestic to military use is the donjon at Barnard Castle (Co. Durham), built around the turn of the thirteenth century. The tower linked directly with the hall, providing a comfortable ancillary suite with two residential chambers, a service room in the basement and a servery at mezzanine level. However, a further top storey was designed as a guardroom with direct access to the curtain wall of the inner ward. In the event of attack the entrance corridor to this floor could be barred off from the lower levels, completely isolating the upper floor. The main entry to the tower was rebated and barred against the donjon so that it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

could be closed off, turning the middle floors of the tower into an abandoned buffer zone while defence was conducted from its summit. A similar arrangement could be put into force at the Coudray Tower at Chinon, but these examples are both late and unusual. Rejecting the defensive approach, scholars have looked for more complex reasons for the development of the donjon and great strides have been made in recent years. Seigneurial connotations attached to the building form have been increasingly recognized9 and this paper seeks to explore this aspect further. Examples used here have been drawn from territories that constituted the Angevin Empire, where a wide variety of stone towers were built whose owners often had cross-Channel connections. 10 All donjons made an arresting architectural statement and, since documentary evidence for the detailed use of the twelfth-century donjon is generally lacking, we must rely on architectural evidence for their interpretation. The vast majority combined an intimidating exterior, a reflection of that militaristic social structure which spawned the castle, with some degree of accommodation. These two elements, rather than any military role, provide the key to understanding the building form. Indeed, we have occasional glimpses of the process by which a simpler hall-house was transformed into a great tower: at Doué-la-Fontaine (Maine-et-Loire) in the 930s,11 Castle Acre (Norfolk) in the 1150s12 and at Norham (Northumberland) in the 1160s.13 The placing of personal accommodation within a donjon seems to have been established in France well before the conquest of England, with a strong residential element found in early eleventhcentury examples such as at Loches (Indre-et-Loire)14 and Ivry-la-Bataille (Eure).15 This trend continued when the Normans imported the building form into England at the end of the century in buildings like the White Tower and Colchester, erected by William the Conqueror.16 Why should this be so? Jean Mesqui has rightly asserted that the donjon was above all a symbol of seigneurial power,17 underlining the jurisdiction of its builder however great or small. It marked the seat of the lord, great care often being 9 10

Dixon and Lott 1993, 93–101. Coulson 1996, 178–9. See Kenyon and Thompson 1994, 175–6. See Stocker 1992. Brown 1986, 10–11. It is still not uncommon to hear guides propound this interpretation. The military versus cultural approach to castle studies has been reviewed most recently and valuably by Coulson 1996. Alexander 1985, 9.

11 12 13 14 15

16 17

27

Mesqui 1992, 138–61; Thompson 1991, 23. No attempt will be made to include evidence of timber towers, although these must have been common, particularly in the early period. By the nature of these buildings, where significant activity took place in the upper storeys, archaeological evidence for their proper analysis is necessarily missing. Bouard 1973–4. Coad and Streeten 1982. Dixon and Marshall 1993b. Mesqui 1998. For an analysis of Ivry-la-Bataille and its influence on the design of the White Tower in London, see Dr Impey’s paper in this volume. See note above. Mesqui 1992, 219.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

taken to ensure its visibility from a great distance and, if the lord could literally occupy this marker, so much the better. However, we should strike a note of caution. What does the modern mind mean by a residence and how would the medieval mind envisage it? Nowadays, when the notion of a private life has become enshrined in human rights, a person’s home has come to be regarded as quite distinct from their professional sphere. No such distinction would have occurred in the consciousness of those who built castles. While most residential towers might seem to lack intimacy and comfort, they do lend themselves to formal reception, often being able to accommodate such activities at a variety of levels or degree. Without doubt there was other accommodation available where the lord and his entourage might be more comfortably catered for, but the donjon acted rather as the official, or even purely ceremonial and public face of his residence. The decision to build a special tower, at considerable cost, and often with great attention to decorative finish both internal and external, could not have been taken lightly. In every case the awesome nature of the tower was essential, demonstrating and advertising the seat of the magnate. For if the lord’s power was symbolized by his tower, the heart of his residence, then what more natural setting to entertain, or awe, his guests or dependants? As such, it was undoubtedly crucial to the psychology of the age.18 To be admitted to the presence within must, in some cases, have been almost overwhelming. It is certainly wrong to assume that a clear distinction between the domestic and official function existed in the minds of builders and this partly accounts for the huge variation in types of tower. Some were designed to fulfil the dual function of providing official reception facilities as well as accommodation. Others provided the former with no attempt at housing the latter, while in others still that emphasis was reversed. The position is further complicated by the fact that ownership of a donjon seems to have become an aspiration pursued by landholders throughout the twelfth century, more or less successfully achieved according to their means. The single common thread that appears to hold together this varied web is the message of dominium with which they had become associated. Nor were these architectural messages restricted to the secular world. A most imposing donjon is to be found at the fortified palace of the bishops of Poitiers at Chauvigny (Vienne), and at Plazac (Dordogne) the crossing-tower of the church was originally a free-standing donjon belonging to a palace of the bishops of Périgueux.19 The latter is similar in scale to the tower attached to the north transept at Rochester Cathedral (Kent), which is attributed to Bishop Gundulf and might have served as his lodging. Significantly, during the last third of the twelfth century the abbot of Nanteuil-en-Vallée (Charente) commissioned a new treasury and scriptorium in the form of an elaborately decorated donjon. These depositories of the foundation’s wealth and learning were, in their own

way, symbols of the abbey’s power and status (Figure 1). Given the mass and diversity of the structures we call donjons, a characteristic that even the embroiderers of the Bayeux Tapestry may have striven to convey,20 it is helpful to break them down into categories. Mesqui has distinguished the tour-beffroi and tour-résidence,21 but the latter category warrants further subdivision because of the enormous diversity it embraces. The criteria for these subdivisions should be architectural rather than arbitrarily based on size,22 for the scale of the donjon could vary enormously; the intended usage is more important. One can tentatively identify seven broad classes of donjon, although to go on to fit each individual donjon neatly into any one category often proves more difficult. THE ‘PALACE’ DONJON At the top of the social scale we find donjons housed both public and private rooms and were capable of fulfilling official functions as well as providing residential accommodation. The very ruinous tower at Ivry-la-Bataille (Eure), built around the turn of the eleventh century,23 retains sufficient clues to its original arrangement and sets a model for subsequent towers. The first floor comprised a suite of rooms ranging from a large public hall to a more private chamber and a chapel. Access to the last two was preceded, and therefore socially controlled, by an antechamber.24 A second chamber was added to the suite slightly later. Similar elements are present at Loches (Indre-etLoire), although here a much more complicated and sophisticated plan was effected c 1013–35.25 This very tall building provided accommodation on three floors over a basement deep enough to be later subdivided horizontally into two. A recently published survey by Mesqui has provided us with long awaited plans and much detail on the edifice.26 The main block of the building (le grand donjon) was designed to interact with a smaller attached block (le petit donjon) or fore-building. The role of the fore-building in the planning of donjons has tended to be greatly underplayed. Often dismissed as a defensive adjunct to carry the entry stairs and, perhaps, house a chapel, it was much more crucial to the ethos of the building. Significantly, a timber fore-building was included at Doué-la-Fontaine when the donjon evolved c 930.27 Although later examples, such as Castle Rising (Norfolk) and Dover (Kent) sported conspicuous defensive 20 21 22

23 24

25 18 19

26

Brown 1976, 17; Thompson 1991, 23. Châtelain 1973, 51, 165–7, 210–11 and plates 34 and 45.

27

28

Taylor 1991, 4 and 8–13. Mesqui 1992. Thompson 1991, 64–5. Thompson’s classification of ‘solar keeps’ as having an internal measurement of less than 10m takes no account of other factors, such as access or decoration. See note 15. Although Mesqui has reconstructed these rooms without an antechamber (Mesqui 1993, 132), the disposition of supporting arches in the basement argues for one in this position. Also, without an antechamber the proportions of the chapel would be too long and thin by comparison with contemporary chapels elsewhere. Dormoy 1998. Mesqui 1998. Bouard 1973, 81–3.

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

features such as arrow-loops and murder holes, one cannot help feeling these were rather to conform to the conventions of a militaristic society than for serious use. More practically, the fore-building provided the vehicle for a wide and grand entry, often incorporating a waiting area,28 which at Dover was even equipped with a centrally heated bench.29 The fore-building at Loches housed upper rooms but in the first place it provided a grand entrance, with a waiting area at the foot of an imposing cantilevered stairway of three straight flights, which conveyed the visitor to the first-floor hall. This was the main room in the donjon, the destination of most visitors, and entered from the north east corner (Figure 2). It should be noted that the door opened towards the petit donjon and therefore could not be barred from within. Otherwise, it would either have got in the way of an immediately adjacent doorway in the east wall of the hall or, perhaps worse still, momentarily barred the entrant’s first view of the apartment: security seems to have been a secondary consideration. The hall, almost 20m long, must have been an impressive sight, lit by a series of windows in three walls. The focal point was a great fireplace at the farthest end, where the count himself perhaps sat. This hall was served by a service corridor, which ran in the thickness of the west and north walls. It allowed servants to enter the donjon by a back door in the west wall accessed by a timber staircase, thus avoiding the grand, official route through the fore-building. The corridor also led to an entrance to the vast storage basement underneath the main hall. The hall was ostensibly well set up to cater for a reception, although the practicalities of actually serving a meal there would have proved a nightmare as the kitchens were outside the building. (The same difficulty would have beset caterers at most donjons, including the White Tower.) As at Ivry, a private chamber was provided off the main hall on the first floor of the fore-building. There might have been a private back entrance to the hall in the south-west corner. Quite separate from the service entrance, this could have been for the use of the count, although it has been altered and it is impossible to be quite sure: it might have been a garderobe originally. Higher levels of the donjon were more private in function. To gain the second floor, one passed though a doorway in the east wall, adjacent to the main hall door. The four main doorways serving the hall (entrance, chamber entrance, service entrance and access to the next floor) are grouped together in the north-east corner. This concentration is aesthetically and architecturally efficient: it leaves the apartment uncluttered; service can be directed to the hall or straight to the chamber, and it minimises the journey of someone using the polite entry though the forebuilding whose destination is either the chamber or the upper storeys. The motivation is certainly not defence, as has been suggested.30 Neither the hall doorway nor the access to the upper floors could be barred against intruders,

and in any case it would have made more sense to separate these doorways to make it easier to intercept intruders before they got into other parts of the donjon. Having placed the second-floor access door in the north-east corner, the architect then went to great lengths to deposit the visitor in the south-east corner on the floor above. They arrived directly opposite the chapel doorway by long straight stairs of two flights. Doorways at Loches received two types of treatment, with plain round-headed ones indicating private use, while those leading to more public spaces were distinguished with a tympanum, as was the case with the chapel. Because of the way that the windows on the second floor are disposed, it seems likely that the main space on the second floor was divided by a timber partition, thus forming an antechamber, chapel and chamber suite exactly like that at Ivry. This should certainly be seen as a more exclusive destination for family and honoured guests only. The most private and least accessible top floor was reached by crossing the antechamber and ascending a spiral stair in the north-east corner: the doorway had no tympanum and the stair is less elegant.31 Again, the main room might have been divided by a timber partition, creating a total of three chambers, including one in the fore-building. To what extent this donjon was capable of actually serving as a home is open to question. It could provide elegant, if cumbersome, living whenever the lord was in residence, although a sensible family might prefer to occupy more compact and convenient accommodation elsewhere in the castle. This question, however, is only academic, arising in our modern and practical minds: what mattered was that this was his symbolic home. It functioned on three levels. First, it acted as the visible signal of seigneurial authority. Secondly, it acted as a grand residence embodying the personal nature of that authority. Thirdly, it fulfilled the important function of providing an impressive reception suite in which the ceremonies or conventions accompanying that authority could be acted out; these might range from receiving homage to conducting diplomatic negotiations. All these factors are linked, for the personal occupation of the building by its owner was part and parcel of its being seen as the mark of his personal and lasting authority which, at the highest rank of feudal society, was very much embodied in the individual. Loches serves as a supreme example. It can be seen as a benchmark, embodying all those features for which subsequent builders strove, albeit in varying measures of success (Figure 3). The most recent survey of the White Tower has revealed a building the usage of which would have been similar to that at Loches, and which also embodied the same practical problems of day to day housekeeping.32 We must conclude that the psychological impact of these massive structures took precedence in their design: towers on this scale were the reserve of royal patrons or exceptionally rich magnates. Impressive towers were built

28

31

29 30

For waiting rooms in later donjons see Dixon 1998. Kevin Booth, personal communication. Heliot and Deyres 1987, 34.

32

29

Durand has drawn attention to the differing use of stair access according to the status of rooms reached; Durand 1996, 224. Impey et al, forthcoming.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 at Caen (Calvados),33 Corfe (Dorset),34 Beaugency (Loiret),35 and Rochester (Kent),36 while three towers following a very similar plan were executed at Norwich, Falaise and Castle Rising.37 During the reign of Henry II, a complicated plan with the addition of small chambers was carried out at Dover (Kent).38

THE HALL-AND-CHAMBER FORMAT In other towers, still representing a high social level, the accent appears to have been weighted more towards the provision of a comfortable domestic suite. Characterized by a reception hall with chamber attached, the arrangement still lends itself to the juxtaposition of public and private function, although the larger chamber may well have been used for more reserved entertainment of a special guest. Smaller in scale than the great palace-donjons, this tower type is exemplified by the beautifully executed, royal donjon at Bowes (Co. Durham), built between 1171 and 1187.43 There was a fore-building, a guardroom to monitor the entrance and a tiny corner kitchen. It is open to question whether there was an upper floor, or merely a timber gallery overlooking the hall at the entrance end: there is no substantial offset for a full floor. The chamber lay beyond the hall, each room having independent access to a pair of garderobes. A narrow channel visible in the wall thickness above the chamber latrine was contrived to dispense water from a cistern on the roof to flush out the chute. With its large windows and the facility to serve hot food, the hall must have comprised an elegant reception room, while the well-lit chamber, with fireplace and flushing lavatory off, provided a comfortable withdrawing room. A similar plan was used in the first phase of the great tower at Portchester, built about 1120,44 and was still popular in the second half of the twelfth century, appearing at Middleham (Yorkshire) and Châteaumur (Vendée). Phase II at Norham (Northumberland), c 1170, also added a chamber to an earlier hall of c 1121, though here with the addition of two further private rooms.45 The early tower of c 1080 at Sainte-Suzanne (Mayenne) may represent a variation on the hall and chamber theme. The essential elements are the same, although the chamber was set above rather than beside the hall. Both rooms were provided with a fireplace and latrine, and must have been connected by a timber staircase. The first floor reception room had a large aumbried recess in the east wall, which might have been an oratory and a back door, perhaps to a balcony, overlooking the settlement. A passage in the west wall, reminiscent of Loches, has two arrow-loops (possibly originally a third) overlooking the approach to the castle gate. While apparently designed to defend the gate, they were perhaps a piece of bravado, for the passage mainly exists to reach a small corner kitchen, which had a drain (detectable on the exterior) and a granite hearth. Though not now accessible and reconstructed only from description, the passage is reported also to give access to the upper floor by means of a narrow stairwell, which held a timber ladder.46

THE PREDOMINANTLY CEREMONIAL DONJON In most high status towers one can argue that the ceremonial function took architectural precedence over domestic provision: occasionally, the latter became totally eclipsed. This arose at Hedingham (Essex), built c 1141 probably to celebrate the elevation of Aubrey III de Vere as first earl of Oxford.39 Here two reception rooms, the upper room particularly magnificent and overlooked by a gallery, formed the only accommodation apart from one garderobe and a few mural chambers only large enough to act as cupboards.40 It also seems to have been the case at Richmond (Yorkshire) where the late eleventh-century stone hall and chamber were separated from the great tower of c 1160 by the length of the bailey. This donjon lacked domestic features but provided an audience chamber with wall benches on the top floor and a grand antechamber at entrance level, from which three large windows overlooking the town might also have allowed the lord to appear before his people.41 Pons (Charente-Maritime) c 1179 presents another example. Despite over-enthusiastic restoration carried out between 1904–6, it is possible to follow the original disposition of rooms. This massive edifice only housed a single, enormously impressive chamber above the basement, with a gallery along one of the shorter end walls. The height of the room would certainly allow for two floors, but a second floor was never included: it would have been devoid of windows, except for two in the south (short) wall, which would have struggled to light a room 17m long. The surviving doorway at second floor level is small and only accessed the gallery in front of these windows; the corbel table for the gallery was fortunately preserved by the restorers. Moreover, a full second floor would have interfered with an arrangement of string courses, attached columns and pilasters which give the chamber the aura of a great church. The tower had no ancillary accommodation except a garderobe, on the first floor. Built by Geoffroy III, seigneur of Pons after Prince Richard (later Richard I) destroyed his earlier castle,42 the donjon might have been built in defiance of the Plantagenets.

33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42

Bouard 1979, 100–11. Toy 1929, plates 33 and 34. Mesqui 1992, illus 256. Brown 1986, 24–5 and 29–41. See Drury and Dixon and Marshall, this volume. Brown 1985, 30–40. This tower is currently the subject of a detailed survey by Kevin Booth, whose results are awaited with interest. Brown 1976, 69. See Dixon and Marshall 1993a. Renn 1993, 185; see also Marshall 1998, 118–19. Senillou, 6.

43 44 45 46

30

HKW, ii, 574. Munby 1990, 5. Dixon and Marshall 1993b, 414–30. Boiteau 1988, 137–8. Boiteau’s suggestion that the kitchen was primarily for the heating of oil or lead to pour on the enemy’s heads is fanciful.

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

SOLAR/RECEPTION TOWERS

in the basement. The recess might be better interpreted as a dramatic backdrop for a seated figure.55 The small but beautifully executed round tower at Château-sur-Epte (Eure) had originally one room above the basement, its interior enhanced by a blind arcade. By contrast, the decorative treatment at mid twelfth-century Peveril (Derbyshire) was entirely restricted to the exterior of the building. Although it had a garderobe and a small mural chamber, possibly an oratory, the tower room was unheated and shows no particular signs of comfort. Although the austerity of the interior could have been much relieved by plasterwork and hangings, it is more like an interview room than a retreat.56 The much more modest, late eleventh-century tower at Marthon (Charente) also originally fell into this category, although heightened later. Phase I at Norham represents an example from the 1120s,57 along with Montrichard (Loir-et-Cher) of a similar date, and Prudhoe (Northumberland).58 The remnants of another remain at Lastours (Haute-Vienne), later incorporated into a fourteenth-century logis.

Smaller towers are often referred to as ‘solar towers’, the meaning of which remains vague. Technically, the term refers to towers that acted as private retreats associated with more public accommodation, such as a freestanding hall. According to this definition, they should have served no public function, but the size of the reception room is not necessarily a sure indication of informal use. It is perhaps more useful to consider the differences found in donjons that are often included in this definition. THE SINGLE CHAMBER FORMAT A significant number of high status towers contained only one room above the basement, with variable provision of garderobes, fireplaces and small mural chambers. While possibly interpreted as private withdrawing rooms, some fit uneasily into this definition. At Saint-Sornin (Broué, Charente-Maritime), for example, the tower is so tall that Châtelain assumed it had more than two storeys,47 although it only had one magnificent chamber.48 Despite its ruinous state, it retains the air of a privy audience chamber, for a personal withdrawing room could have been added more conveniently to a domestic range at ground level. The earliest example of such an apartment survives at Langeais (Indre-et-Loire), of c 1000, where a single, heated reception room had a tiny ancillary chamber in an adjoining turret.49 The tower at Chepstow (Monmouthshire), newly surveyed by Roland Harris, and placed a little later than the traditional date of c 1067,50 may represent the largest, earliest and grandest example in Britain.51 This also had a back door or opening to a balcony commanding a fine view of the river Wye. The scale of the apartment and the quality of its decorative treatment distinguish it from others in this classification. Nevertheless, smaller towers were often very well appointed. Brionne (Eure), built before 1118 by Robert du Meulan,52 represents a magnificent single roomed tower, although with a small additional mural chamber in the west wall with a fine fireplace. The quality of the surviving masonry here is especially noteworthy. The royal donjon at Montoire (Loir-et-Cher) had no ancillary rooms but retains a fireplace and a particularly fine window.53 At Semblançay (Indre-et-Loire), exquisitely decorated capitals survive on the fireplace. Another adorns a column, which dissects a large recess in the east wall (Figure 4). The room is rather small to accommodate Mesqui’s interpretation of this feature as part of an arcade dividing the room into two, on the Beaugency or Rochester model.54 The existing column is supported by an offset and there is no sign of a corresponding column on the west wall or supporting piers

THE MULTI-CHAMBERED FORMAT Often no larger than single chamber towers, but containing more than one room, the domestic nature of these towers has been more readily recognized and they have been seen as adjuncts to more public accommodation, which usually no longer survives. The round tower at Fréteval (Loir-etCher), built by the count of Blois at the turn of the twelfth century, is a supreme example: it became a model for a series of buildings in western France and elsewhere.59 The tower stands towards the western end of an oval ring-work, occupying high flat ground at the summit of a natural escarpment. Positioned towards the edge of the cliff, it was best placed visually to dominate the settlement below, a visible reminder that its owner was a man of consequence (Figure 5). The tower had two rooms and a loft above a very shallow basement, which was perhaps merely intended to aerate the lower chamber floor, keeping it warmer and drier. The entrance was at second floor level, accessed by a timber gallery and with a porch to protect the doorway.60 The chamber was furnished with a fireplace, aumbries and a pair of closely set windows whose jambs and intervening wall were decorated with a chequerboard pattern of different coloured ashlar blocks. Although a reception room, with a diameter of only 10m it must have been reserved for select company. Below this a further chamber was similarly appointed, though with narrower loop windows treated more plainly, and with a well. A mezzanine-level window between the floors shows where a 55

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Chatelain 1973, 182. Mesqui 1992, 114 and illus 119. See Impey and Lorens’ recent survey, 1998. Dr R B Harris, pers comm. Knight 1991, 4. Chatelain 197, 116. Mesqui 1993, 200 and illus 232. Mesqui 1992, 213.

56

57 58

59 60

31

Compare Philip Dixon’s interpretation of the reception room in the early fourteenth-century donjon at Knaresborough, Dixon 1990, 127. The Peak might provide a model for the lost donjon at Nottingham Castle. Marshall and Foulds 1997, 46–7. Dixon and Marshall 1993b, 427–8. Prudhoe had an attic above the main reception room. Saunders 1993, 12–17. Mesqui 1992, 185. ibid, 131, illus 145.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

timber staircase was placed and there might have been more lights in the south-east section of the wall, which has gone. This second room, although inferior in finish to the upper chamber, was probably the private retreat of the lord, heated, secure, and supplied with water. Although the Fréteval-type arrangement is found in round towers too numerous to mention, the rather unusual arrangement of using the ground floor as an inner chamber was not frequently followed: the great, square tower at Chambois (Orne) is an exception.61 Otherwise, ground-floor basements are more normal, with entry level on the main first floor and the secondary chamber placed above. At Mondoubleau (Loir-et-Cher) an elaborate entry arrangement is also present, one feels as much for effect as for security. Here it consists of a chicane in the wall thickness commanded by a loop from the main chamber.62 Straight mural stairs were used here and at the late twelfthcentury round towers at Laval (Mayenne) and Conches-enOuche (Eure), where the basement was vaulted and the main entry chamber had a well but no fireplace.63 The form reached its apogee in the massive structures found at Châteaudun (Eure-et-Loire), 1170s,64 Neaufles-SaintMartin (Eure), 1180s, and Pembroke (Pembrokeshire), 1190s.65 It also served as the model for the King John’s tower at Odiham (Hampshire), Barnard Castle and several early thirteenth-century towers in the Welsh marches and Ireland.66 That donjons in this category were used formally is indicated by the arrangement at Richard I’s ChâteauGaillard (Eure) of the 1190s. Though small, the great tower forms the kernel of the architecturally innovative inner ward. Actually attached to the domestic logis, but with independent access, it contained only two rooms. The entrance chamber was on the upper floor with a fine window overlooking the cliff side and river below. This seems to have functioned as the anteroom to an audience chamber below. Here the single and exceptionally wide window embrasure was set back in a series of orders, as if designed to frame a throne set on the raised sill: unlike the other openings in the inner ward, including the room above, there were no window seats here. Nowadays office planners are warned against the psychological intimidation caused by forcing an interviewee to confront an interviewer framed against a large window. Square towers found more favour in England. At Goodrich (Herefordshire)67 the first floor entry, marked by an elegant doorway of two plain orders with nook-shafts and scalloped capitals, suggests a reception chamber yet the room was small (4.5m square) and blind. Confined access to the upper room indicates its private usage, but it was marked externally by a string course with dog-tooth ornament and highly-decorated two-light windows. The

more sophisticated great tower at Guildford (Surrey), almost certainly built by Henry I but later altered,68 had more accommodation and comfort but nevertheless served a similar purpose at a higher social level. Probably entered originally by a doorway in the north wall (later converted to a window), the main floor was lit by at least two, but probably three large windows. A small mural chamber, a garderobe and a chapel were all contrived in the wall thickness. The second floor and wall-head were reached by a vice in the north-west corner off the original entry passage. The private room on the second floor had two windows, a garderobe and a fireplace. In the west wall there was a small mural chamber with access through an embrasure to a timber gallery overlooking the interior of the shell-keep which surrounds the tower. It was removed when a new doorway was inserted into the west wall at entry floor level, which also interfered with the buttress arrangement, but the holes for the gallery’s cantilevered joists are still visible. If it were designed for defence it might have been more appropriately sited towards the field and it seems likely that, like the other features present in the tower, it was intended rather for pleasure. In the second half of the century royal patronage produced twin towers in this class at Niort (Deux-Sèvres), perhaps denoting the joint lordship of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine over the city. Contemporary twin towers are rare, but can be found dominating the town of Le Blanc (Indre) and in the remote Dordogne countryside at Vernode.69 Heslop’s analysis of the domestic arrangements at Orford (Suffolk)70 and Mesqui’s of the access arrangements at Houdan (Yvelines)71, both buildings probably influenced by Provins (Seine-et-Marne),72 have demonstrated the heights of complexity and sophistication to which this class of tower could aspire. At Orford the fitting together of reception chamber, private rooms, chapel, water supply, heating system, kitchen and possibly (on the upper floor) bathroom is nothing short of ingenious.73 Similar complexity was reached at Trim (Co. Meath),74 while at Conisborough (Yorkshire) the plan is less complicated, but the execution superlative.75 These towers occasionally reached large and grand proportions, such as those at Domfront (Orne), Vire (Calvados), Pouzauges (Vendée), Newcastle upon Tyne (Northumberland),76 Carlisle (Cumberland),77 phase II at Portchester (Hampshire)78 and Scarborough (Yorkshire).79 68

69 70 71 72 73

61 62 63 64 65 66

67

Mesqui 1992, illus 96. ibid, 129 and illus 143. ibid, 126, illus 138. ibid, illus 152. Cathcart King 1978, 102–9. McNeill 1984, 112 and 117. Penrice, Caldicot and Bronllys are further Welsh examples. Renn 1968, 195 and illus 138.

74 75 76 77 78 79

32

There is no recorded expenditure before 1173: HKW, ii, 658. The alterations to the tower were probably carried out by King John or King Henry III. Châtelain 1973, 142 and 209. Heslop 1991. Mesqui 1992, 113. ibid, 112. Usually interpreted as a second kitchen, but with the drain at floor level (to facilitate the emptying of a heavy tub?) The fireplace would have made this a very cosy bathroom. Heslop 1991, 42. McNeill 1990, 321–5. Clark 1884, 438–446. Knowles 1926, 8–39. McCarthy et al 1990, 69–88. Cunliffe and Munby 1985, 81–7; 120–22. Port 1989, 8–11.

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

MARKER TOWERS

accessed and, suitably decorated and furnished, would make an imposing reception room for a small number of people. This chamber had to be crossed, however, to reach the second staircase, perhaps marking the upper floors as out of bounds. They might have comprised three select chambers for members of the family, heated by brazier. The notion that the tower was primarily for defence is senseless: from within all the corners are blind. One also feels that the effort put into the ashlar finish suggests that its height (originally 20m.) had more to do with its capacity to be seen rather than to see from.

A small number of towers, clearly of high status, fail to fall comfortably into any of the categories so far mentioned. Small in floor area and often austere in appearance, they do not appear ideally suited to residential use, yet to accept them simply as look-out towers seems to stretch credulity. They are perhaps best seen as a sub-class of the reception/solar tower where more emphasis was placed on the propaganda role of the tower as a marker. Good examples exist at Montbrun (Haute-Vienne) and Commarque (Dordogne). Each rises from a surrounding complex of buildings and is constructed of the finest masonry with fine window openings.80 Montbrun (Figure 6a) has blind arcading yet the internal floor area is no more than 3m–4m square. Château-Chervix (Haute-Vienne) is also strikingly elegant. The pilaster buttresses terminate in blind arcades and the top floor must have presented an imposing room, about 5m x 8m, with two double-light windows along one wall and access to a timber gallery on each of the other three facades (Figure 6b). At Le Grand-Pressigny (Indre-et-Loire) the rare survival of contemporary supplementary buildings actually attached to the late twelfth century tower might give us some insight into the role of such austere donjons in relation to more general domestic arrangements. Here the foundations of a large hall have recently been excavated in the middle ward of the castle,81 which lies to the south of the inner ward. Here the donjon rose above a private domestic range, which clasped its northern and eastern sides at basement level (Figures 7 and 8).82 The public and general life of the castle was clearly focused on the hall but more select and reserved accommodation was desirable for the lord, his family and their special guests. This was centred in the domicilium with its great tower attached. Entered from a narrow courtyard, which separated house and tower, the donjon is one of a handful with ground-floor entry.83 A vice in the eastern corner took visitors to the first-floor room (about 7m square). Having crossed this room, a spiral staircase in the south corner gave access to three further floors. The east and north walls of the donjon collapsed in 1988 and it is now difficult to determine whether these contained any elements of comfort: from the evidence of earlier photographs, one suspects not. Devoid of fireplaces, garderobes or even good-sized windows, the interior is stark yet the quality of the build superlative. Standing alone, as does a similar donjon at Loudun (Vienne), it seems far removed from the normal idea of residence. However, put into the context of its surroundings it makes more sense. At Le Grand-Pressigny some status must have been attached to admission to the inner ward, composed as it was of the lord’s private quarters. To enter the great tower may have been a further mark of honour. The first floor room is most readily

ASPIRATION OR EMULATION TOWERS The towers described above might have been seen as a goal to aspire to by those on a lower rung of the landowning ladder. Any stone tower represents a considerable investment and it is not surprising to find that at some sites such assets were exploited to their full capacity, showing architectural signs of aspiring to the status of a better tower while in reality remaining fairly basic.84 At Chalus-Chabrol (Haute-Vienne) the vestiges of a twelfth-century upper-floor hall, its roof supported by a central column, exist within the logis range,85 marking the focus of the castle’s accommodation. The donjon originally consisted of three vaulted floors over a basement, although the top storey was lost in 1870. A retractable ladder protected access to the second floor, 86 but once past this there was a mural stair and the upper chamber was endowed with a large double-light window. It also had a doorway leading to a hourding gallery placed above the entry to the tower. However, it should be remembered that in peacetime a hourding gallery makes a pleasant balcony. If the tower were purely designed for defence, the refinements of the door moulding, which survives in a fragmentary condition, the stairs, and above all the two-light window would all be unnecessary. The tour-beffroi at Chalus is perfectly capable of doubling up as a prestigious solar/reception tower. Further examples may be cited. In the small village of Salon-la-Tour (Corrèze) the street plan preserves the layout of a motte and bailey castle of which only the donjon surmounting the motte remains. Set in the southeast quarter of the motte platform, perhaps to leave room for other buildings in timber, the tower has three floors over a basement,87 the second floor having a garderobe corbelled out from the south wall. Room size is comparable with Goodrich, although at Salon-la-Tour access to each floor must have been by timber stairs or ladders. Both the entry and second floors are gloomy, being lit only by loops. But the top storey, marked externally by a string course and apparently the best room 84 85 86

80 81 82 83

87

Mesqui 1993, 232 and illus 288. Information from Mademoiselle D Grandin. Bardisa and Verjux 1992, 5–6 and 11–15. There are others at Carlisle, Bamburgh, Brionne, Montrichard, Vire and Prudhoe.

33

Mesqui has made a similar point: 1992, 110. Boudrie 1989, 7 and plan page 4. Compare with Ambleny (Aisne): Mesqui 1992, 135. The owner has interestingly revealed the foundations of the tower by excavation: they consist of four massive relieving arches, one to each wall, which were buried as the motte was artificially raised around them and inside them. Thus the earth floor of the basement was created and the exterior plinth and pilaster buttresses only begin at this level.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 well-built beaked donjon occupied a central space.91 The latter was later converted to domestic use. The message of dominium carried by even modest examples, such as those at La Vermondie, Jayac or Bourdeix (Dordogne), Confolens or Lachaise (Charente) might have contributed to their subsequent preservation: at many sites only the donjon survives from the earlier period of stone castlebuilding.92 It is questionable how much use such towers would have been under attack. The late twelfth-century vaulted tower at Piegut (Dordogne) was capable of functioning as a kind of bunker, but it would be ineffectual as a fighting base. The interior floor space is only of about 3m2 and there are few arrow-loops. From the roof one might have kept watch but, even today, the tower remains such an impressive sight that one cannot help but conclude that its very appearance was its raison d’être.93 Although still numerous in France, and possibly once so in Britain, donjons belonging to this category are not found on this side of the English Channel. Rare survivors are preserved in Pembrokeshire, at Carew within the fabric of the eastern façade of the thirteenth-century castle,94 and adjacent to the gatehouse at Manorbier.

in the tower, had a large opening in each facade, that to the south leading on to an external gallery or hourding. Before it was acquired by its present owners the tower was left in a state of neglect and the top floor suffered most, but the base of a capital, perhaps of c 1160, was retrieved from one of the window embrasures. The donjon seems to have been regarded by its owners as rather more than a look-out post. The towers at Saint-Yrieux and Eschizadour (both Haute-Vienne), the latter having a garderobe and two double-light windows on the second floor, also fall into this category and there are many more. The late twelfth-century tower at Luzech (Lot: Figure 4) is similar in scale to Salon-la-Tour, but shows signs of further pretension. A vice off the entry-passage connects the two main floors, which lie over a vaulted basement. The window openings, austere on the exterior, are set in wide embrasures on the interior and the garderobe is properly built into a corner buttress rather than being corbelled out. This arrangement is moving towards the emulation of superior towers like that at L’Isleau (near Saint-Sulpice d’Arnoult, CharenteMaritime) attributed to Henry II.88 In this more comfortable tower there is more floor space and each chamber had a garderobe and fireplace (Figure 4). The superior quality of the general build and architectural detail testify to the means of its builder,89 but the arrangement might have formed a model for Luzech. During the thirteenth century and later there was a trend towards domestic improvement in donjons like, for example, the ill-lit twelfth-century donjon at SaintLaurent-les-Tours (Lot). Improvements often entailed the addition of larger windows, staircases or fireplaces, as at Moncontour (Vienne), Chalucet-haut (Haute-Vienne), Biron (Dordogne), La Rochefoucauld (Charente) or Lavardin (Loir-et-Cher), to name but a few. However, though large and well-appointed windows tend to be pointers to polite use of a room, we can perhaps fall into the trap of reading too much where they are lacking. At Chauvigny-Gouzon the original twelfth-century tower of a single storey over a basement was doubled in size and the whole raised by a further storey at the beginning of the thirteenth century.90 It is difficult to find a motive for this other than the increase of accommodation, yet the provision of windows remained meagre.

CONCLUSION How far can we speak of the donjon as residence? In the modern sense this is difficult. Great towers were not designed to function alone and even where there was a considerable degree of self-containment they must have remained dependant upon other buildings. Kitchens, for example, are rare and their size and facilities show that they could only have catered properly for small numbers or to re-heat and present previously prepared food. At some sites evidence remains to show that donjons were actually attached to other buildings, for example at Niort, Château Gaillard, Le Grand-Pressigny. There are also stones keyed into the lower west side of the tower at Châteaudun and into the eastern buttresses at Semblençay, where the foundations of an adjacent building can be traced on the ground. At Prudhoe Saunders has suggested that the ground floor entry linked the tower directly with a hall,95 and this was certainly the case on the first floor at Barnard Castle.96 At Conches-en-Ouche (Eure) a mural tower containing a further lodging was added close to the donjon shortly after it was built. At many more sites the relationship between the great tower and the main body of accommodation remains speculative. However, the notion of the self-contained dwelling is essentially modern; clusters of buildings were the norm in the Middle Ages. It

NON-RESIDENTIAL TOWERS It must be conceded that there exists a class of donjon which never played a residential role and not necessarily because resources were unavailable. At Bruniquel (Tarnet-Garonne) the plain and probably early tour-beffroi continued to occupy pride of place at the centre of the enceinte, but accommodation was located in a wellappointed logis. At Chalucet-bas (Haute-Vienne), the austere and featureless ‘Tour Jeanette’ dominated the approach to the main enceinte at Chalucet-haut, where a

91

92

93 88 89 90

94

Châtelain 1973, 184. L’Isleau has stylistic details similar to the royal towers at Niort. Eneau 1994, 43.

95 96

34

For illustrations of the Chalucet towers, see Châtelain 1973 plate XLIV, Mesqui 1992, illus 229, and Bourdelas 1994, 24, 27, 34 and 50. La Vermondie and La Chaise stand rather incongruously beside fine later houses. The tower of c 1144 at Goodrich (Herefordshire) is the only twelfth-century building to survive the fourteenth-century rebuilding of the castle. There are many more examples. Mesqui 1992, 103 and illus 107. Austin et al 1992, 23 and Figure 9. Saunders 1993, 13. Austin 1988, 26.

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

D’autres offraient encore des commodités plus modestes, mais remplissaient un rôle similaire en signalant le statut local de leur propriétaire. Dans une certaine mesure, on peut attribuer ces différences aux ressources dont disposaient les constructeurs, bien que cela n’explique pas toujours entièrement les grandes différences que l’on peut rencontrer dans la forme des donjons. Comme le traitement architectural pouvaient différer considérablement, il est démontré qu’il pourrait être utile de répartir les donjons en sept grandes catégories, selon l’usage pour lequel il apparaît qu’ils étaient destinés à l’origine.

is far more important to place residential aspects of the great tower in the context of the twelfth century and, more specifically, of the complex psychology surrounding it. First and foremost the great tower should be seen as the residence of lordship, always occupying a special place in the castle. Whatever the distant origins of the great tower might have been, by the eleventh century the physical occupation of that place, even at a purely ceremonial or symbolic level, had become part of its mystique and was to remain so throughout the twelfth century. ABSTRACT This paper addresses the apparent enigma of the great tower in eleventh- and twelfth-century England and France. The nobility invested considerable financial resources in raising these buildings, which were often the first in the castle to be erected in stone, yet they were illequipped for fighting. Although there was great variation in terms of their size, finish and the facilities they provided, they are regarded as a single class of monument. It is argued that towers were built as official or even symbolic residences by the highest echelons of society. They served as visible, permanent, architectural statements of lordship in an age when the feudal lord might, in practice, be absent for most of the time. While incorporating a greater or lesser degree of personal comfort, their domestic provision could be on a grand enough scale to provide the backdrop for entertaining on a ceremonial level. Others still offered more modest facilities, but fulfilled a similar function in marking the local status of their owners. To some extent these differences can be attributed to the resources available to the builders, although this does not always entirely explain the great variation which is to be found in the form of the donjon. As the architectural emphasis could differ considerably, it is argued that it might be helpful to subdivide the donjon into seven broad categories, according to the use they appear to have been primarily intended for.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Dieser Artikel adressiert das offenbare Rätsel des grossen Turmes im 11. und 12. Jh. in England und Frankreich. Der Adel investierte ziemlich viele finanzielle Ressourcen in die Errichtung dieser Bauten, die oft als erstes aus Stein in einer Burg hergestellt wurden; dennoch waren sie nicht sehr gut für einen Kampf ausgestattet. Obwohl die Grösse, Ausfuhrung und die Einrichtungen sehr varierten, werden sie alle unter einem einzelnen Begriff für Monumente zusammengefasst. Es wird behauptet, dass Turmbauten als offizielle oder sogar symbolische Residenz der höchsten Stufe der Gesellschaft errichtet wurden. Sie dienten als sichtbare, permanente, architektonische Erklärung des Adels in einer Zeit wo der feudale Lord vielleicht in Praxis, meistens abwesend war. Während diese Bauten mehr oder weniger persönlichen Komfort enthielten, konnte die ‘häusliche’ Provision auch gross genug sein um als Kulisse für eine spezielle Zeremonie zu dienen. Andere besassen mehr bescheidene Einrichtungen, aber erfüllten eine ähnliche Funktion, indem sie als Markierung des örtlichen Ranges des Besitzers dienten. Zu einem gewissen Teil, sind die Ressourcen die damals für den Architekten erhältlich waren, fur diese Differenzen verantwortlich, allerdings ist das nicht immer die Erklärung für die grosse Variation welche in der Form des donjon vorgefunden werden kann. Da die architektonische Betonung sich erheblich unterscheidet, wird behauptet, dass es vielleicht einfacher wäre, wenn man den donjon in sieben deutliche Kategorien unterteilt, die dem Zweck für den sie ursprunglich beabsichtigt worden waren, entsprechen.

RÉSUMÉ Cet article traite de l’énigme apparente des grands donjons aux XIe et XIIe siècle en Angleterre et en France. La noblesse a investi des sommes considérables pour élever ces constructions qui furent souvent les premières dans le château fort à être en pierre, même si elles étaient mal équipées pour le combat. Bien qu’il y ait eu des grandes différences dans leur taille, leurs finitions et les commodités qu’elles proposaient, on les considère comme constituant une seule catégorie de monuments. Il est démontré que les donjons furent construits comme résidence officielle ou même symbolique par les couches les plus hautes de la société. Elle servaient de signal architectural visible et permanent de la seigneurie, à une époque où la seigneurie féodale pouvait être en réalité absente la plupart du temps. Tout en intégrant un degré plus ou moins grand de confort personnel, les installations privées pouvaient être d’un niveau assez élevé pour servir de toile de fond à des réceptions d’ordre cérémoniel.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr Sarah Speight, Mrs Dorothy Goodacre and my own family for their assistance in surveying sites and Monsieur and Madame A Tonnerieux and Madame Begne for allowing access to Salon-la-Tour and L’Isleau. I am grateful to Mademoiselle D Grandin and Monsieur U Jollet for their assistance at both Le Grand-Pressigny and Loches and to David Taylor for preparing the drawings. Bibliography Alexander, M 1985. Guildford Castle Guide, Guildford Austin, D 1988. Barnard Castle, London

35

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

dendrochronologique du donjon de Loches pour la castellologie’, Bull mon, 154, 224–8 Eneau, T 1994. Donjon de Gouzon, Chauvigny Heslop, T A 1991. ‘Orford Castle, nostalgia and sophisticated living’, Arch Hist, 34, 36–58 Heslop, T A 1994. Norwich Castle Keep, Norwich Impey, E and Lorans, E 1998. ‘Le donjon de Langeais et son environnement’, Deux donjons construits autour l’an mil en Touraine, Société Française d’Archéologie, Paris, 9–59 Kenyon, J and Thompson, M 1994. ‘The origin of the word ‘keep’’, Med Archaeol, 38, 175–6 Knight J. 1991. Chepstow Castle, Cardiff Knowles, W H 1926. ‘The Castle, Newcastle upon Tyne’, Archaeol Aeliana, 4th ser, 2, 1–51 Marshall, P 1998. ‘The twelfth-century castle at Newark’, Brit Archaeol Assoc Trans: Southwell and the buildings of Nottinghamshire Marshall, P and Foulds, T 1997. ‘The Royal Castle’ in Beckett J (ed) A Centenary History of Nottingham, Manchester and New York, 43–55 McCarthy, M R, Summerson, H R T and Annis, R G 1990. Carlisle Castle, London McNeill, T E 1984. ‘The Great Towers of Early Irish Castles’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 12, 98–117 McNeill, T E 1990. ‘Trim Castle, Co. Meath; the first three generations’, Archaeol J, 147, 308–36 Mesqui, J 1992 and 1993a. Châteaux et Enceintes de la France Médieval, 2 vols , Paris Mesqui, J 1993b. ‘Notes sur l’habitat noble rural dans le nord et l’est de l’Île-de-France du XIIe au XVe siècle’, in Meirion-Jones, G and Jones, M (eds), Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France. Proceedings of the Colloquium held on 24 November 1990. London: Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers, No. 15, 121–40 Mesqui, J 1998. ‘La tour maitresse du donjon de Loches’, Deux donjons construits autour l’an mil en Touraine, Société Française d’Archéologie, Paris Munby, J T 1990. Portchester Castle, London Port, G 1989. Scarborough Castle, London Renn, D F 1968. Norman Castles in Britain, London Renn, D F 1993. ‘Burhgeat and gonfanon: two sidelights from the Bayeux Tapestry’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 16, 177–98 Saunders, A 1993. Prudhoe Castle, London Senillou, P undated. Pons: son histoire à travers ses monuments, Pons Stocker, D 1992. ‘The Shadow of the General’s Armchair’, Archaeol J, 149, 415–20 Taylor, A 1991. ‘Belrem’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 14, 1– 23 Thompson, M 1991. The Rise of the Castle, Cambridge Toy, S 1929. ‘Corfe Castle: its history, construction and present condition’, Archaeologia, 79, 85–102

Austin, D 1992 Carew Castle Archaeological Project Interim Report Bardisa, M and Verjux, C 1992. Le Grand-Pressigny: Le Château, Le Musée de Prehistoire, Conseil General d’Indre-et-Loire Boiteau, R 1988. La decouverte de Sainte-Suzanne, Herault-Editions Boüard, M de 1973–4. ‘De l’aula au donjon: les fouilles de la motte et de La Chapelle à Doué-la-Fontaine (Xe–XIe siecle)’, Archéol méd, 3–4, 5–110 Boüard, M de 1979. Le Château de Caen, Caen Bourdelas, L 1994. Chalucet-en-Limousin, Limoges Boudrie, R et M-A 1989. Le Château de Chalus-Chabrol, Chalus Brown R A, Colvin H M and Taylor A J 1963 The History of the King’s Works, The Middle Ages, 2, London Brown, R A 1976. English Castles, 3rd ed, London Brown R A 1984. The Tower of London, London Brown R A 1985. Dover Castle, London Brown R A 1986. Rochester Castle, London Cathcart King, D A 1978. ‘Pembroke Castle’, Archaeol Cambrensis, 127, 75–121 Châtelain, A 1973. Donjons romans des Pays de l’Ouest, Paris Clark, G T 1884. Medieval Military Architecture in England, 1, London Clark, G T 1889. ‘Bamburgh Castle’, Archaeol J, 46, 93– 113 Coad, J G and Streeten, A D F 1982. ‘Excavations at Castle Acre, Norfolk, 1972–7: country house and castle of the Norman earls of Surrey’, Archaeol J, 139, 138–301 Coulson, C 1996. ‘Cultural realities and reappraisals in English castle-study’, J Med Hist, 22, 177–208 Cunliffe, B and Munby, J 1985. Excavations at Portchester Castle, 4, London Deyres M 1970. ‘Le donjon de Langeais’, Bull mon, 128, 179–93 Deyres M. 1974. ‘Les châteaux de Foulques Nerra’, Bull mon, 132, 7–28 Dixon, P 1990. ‘The donjon of Knaresborough: the castle as theatre’, Château Gaillard, 16, 121–39 Dixon, P 1998. ‘Design in castle-building: the controlling of access to the lord’, Château Gaillard, 18, 47– 56 Dixon, P and Lott, B 1993. ‘The Courtyard and Tower: contexts and symbols in the development of late medieval great houses’, J Brit Archaeol Assoc, 146, 93–101 Dixon, P and Marshall, P 1993a. ‘The great tower at Hedingham Castle: a reassessment’, Fortress, 18, 16–23 Dixon, P and Marshall, P 1993b. ‘The Great Tower in the Twelfth Century: The Case of Norham Castle’, Archaeol J, 150, 410–32 Dormoy, C 1998. ‘L’expertise dendrochronologique du donjon de Loches (Indre-et-Loire): des données fondamentales pour sa datation,’ Archéol méd, 27, 73–89 Durand, P 1996. ‘Les consequences de la datation 36

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

Figure 1 Perhaps built for prestige, this donjon-like structure housed a treasury and scriptorium at the abbey of Nanteuil-en-Vallée (Charente) Pamela Marshall

37

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 2 Floor plans of the donjon at Loches, built by the count of Anjou between 1013 and 1035 After Mesqui

38

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

Figure 3 The great tower at Loches (Indre-et-Loire), built by the count of Anjou between 1013 and 1035, still dominates the town Pamela Marshall

39

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 4 Sketch plans of donjons at Semblençay (Indre-et-Loire), Luzech (Lot) and L’Isleau (Charente-Maritime)

40

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

Figure 5 Interior view of the great tower at Fréteval (Loir-et-Cher) Pamela Marshall

41

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 6a Although small in floor area, the tower at Montbrun (Haute-Vienne) was exquisitely built Pamela Marshall

Figure 6b The great tower at Château-Chervix (Haute-Vienne) built by the viscount of Limoges Pamela Marshall

42

Pamela Marshall: The Great Tower as Residence

Figure 7 Plan of the inner ward at Le Grand-Pressigny (Indre-et-Loire)

43

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figures 8a and 8b The grand exterior and rather stark interior of the tower at Le Grand-Pressigny is more easily understood in the context of its immediate surrounding buildings Pamela Marshall

44

The Gap below the Castle in Ireland by

T. E. McNeill If we look at the sites in England around 1300, there are a number which may be described as manor houses or as manorial enclosures. There may be a question over whether we should view some of these sites as being small castles; for others at the lower end of the scale, we may wonder whether they are in any sense seigneurial. This very confusion makes the point. Both socially and on the ground, the concept of the castle, and the class of men who used castles, is not sealed or clearly distinguished from such terms as manor house or gentry. In Ireland, we cannot point to such sites, which is the starting point for this discussion; why not? The easiest answer might be that such sites did not exist in Ireland during the thirteenth century, when the English lordship was at its height. Documentary sources, however, make it clear that they did from the beginning of the thirteenth century, when the estates recorded in the 1211–12 Pipe Roll1 are arranged in manors. Primarily, of course, the manor was a legal and financial concept but it could also mean a farm, or estate, in an agricultural sense. In Ireland some of the manors were of such enormous extent that they could never have been farming units.2 Many were, however, centres of estates in a real, farming, sense as well. The documentary descriptions refer almost invariably to demesne lands, which needed structures to farm them. They talk of manorial enclosures and mention buildings – chamber or hall, barn, dovecot – set around a courtyard. The sites we seek thus existed. A second possible reason for our absence of sites might lie in inadequate fieldwork: this could be plausible since there has not been a long tradition either of field survey or of interest in the English lordships among archaeologists working in Ireland. However, the publication of county inventories and other field surveys have gone a fair way to cover the area, and the gap in monuments still remains: the absence of sites is thus apparent. Here we begin to approach the nub of the problem. In order to find something, you must know what it is you are looking for. When we say that we have not found manorial sites, what we mean is that we have not found the enclosures around them, either as physical remains, or as surviving plots or closes, preserved in the pattern of village plans. But to succeed here we need the pattern of settlement to have survived, at least occasionally, from the thirteenth century, as it does in England, or else the enclosures to have left traces visible on the ground or from the air. The first requires us to look at the pattern of rural settlement; the second at the nature of the enclosures. Much that has been written about the topic stresses that the manorial system was introduced to Ireland

quickly by the English lords and concludes that therefore the structure of open-field farming, with demesne agriculture at its heart, was the normal regime at least in the south-east of Ireland.3 Certainly the core activity for these estates was the growing of corn for the market, either within Ireland or in England. The extents, however, show that lands assigned to free tenants, either for service or for money rent, were the backbone of seigneurial incomes, rather than their demesnes. These lands often have the names of townlands, or even parishes, still locatable on the modern map away from the core of the estate.4 These free tenants ran discrete estates of their own, with their own centres and, presumably, with their own workforce. The demesne lands which were left were then farmed by a workforce, not derived from customary exactions of the peasantry, but from hired labour: the recorded services owed are far too light to have provided much more than work at peak times in the agricultural year. The fields, whose rotation may be recorded were apparently discrete blocks of lands, not strips in fields shared with others. The manor farm stood therefore as one unit surrounded by the lands of tenants, some of whom were to be found miles away. There was no necessary primacy to the manorial curia in terms of settlement, for the free tenants’ estate centres acted as foci as well. This is a regime which would have served the needs of the incoming English lords much better than attempts to transplant the whole mechanism of open-field farming and communities to support it. To English lords’ eyes, Ireland was underdeveloped, to be colonized like the waste of eleventh- or twelfth-century England, and the means would be the same: leasing out blocks of land to individuals and concentrating their own efforts on the needs of the lands they retained in demesne. The manorial centre might go on to develop as a stable nucleated settlement – a village – but this was not inevitable. If this is the process then it would explain the failure of archaeologists to find any convincing trace of open fields, either surviving in the present field patterns, or any sign of ridge-and-furrow. Likewise, the general paucity of the remains of villages would be explained if we see the settlement pattern as being much more based on dispersed estates of free tenants generating hamlets rather than on nucleated villages. Without a stable village plan to preserve its site, we will not find the manorial enclosure now. In the extents and other sources we find accounts of these manorial centres. Only occasionally do the extents list the buildings of the manorial complex, because, as they so often point out, they were worth nothing. The extent of the manor of Cloncurry in 1304 has become a much-

1

3

2

Davies and Quinn 1941, Supplement. Empey 1982; Neill 1983.

4

45

Cosgrove 1987. Simms 1988; McNeill 1980.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800-1600 quoted example.5 Here there was a curia, poorly enclosed it was said, in which lay a wooden hall, a small house and a motte (on which was a wooden chamber) surrounded by a rotten fence. In a hagard (also described as poorly enclosed) was a grange, a malt kiln and a small house used for threshing because there was no barn or granary. The word ‘hagard’, which is often found, is interesting for it clearly relates to ‘hedge’, giving us a clue as to the nature of the enclosure. On the lands of Roger Bigod, extended in 1306–7, were a number of manors: at Forth there was stone chamber and a grange; at Ballysax a tower and a grange; at Old Ross an old hall surrounded by stone walls, a stone house outside the gate, a small hall with a chapel attached, a kitchen, a grange and a storehouse.6 In 1303 Theobald de Verdun was accused of wasting Simon de Feypo’s manor of Santry, when Simon was in his custody as a minor. Among other depredations, Theobald was accused of destroying two chambers, two stables, a granary and a bakehouse.7 Other extents give similar pictures of a collection of wooden buildings, with the occasional stone chamber set within courtyards. Indeed, the fact that all of them note more or less extensive acreages of land farmed in demesne presupposes the buildings to serve them. These buildings are both strictly agricultural, such as barns, and seigneurial or residential, the halls and chamber towers. By contrast, it is noticeable how little stress there is on enclosures. Most are like that of Cloncurry, where the description of the curia is, in this respect, the same as that of the hagard. At Thurles and at Carkenlis a ditch is mentioned,8 while the castle of Knocktopher has an inner and an outer curia as well as an outer gate, apparently into the latter: a hall, chapel and chamber were to be found in the inner court, but there was also a hall along with the grange, byre and other buildings in the outer court.9 The castle of Nyncheaunleaf had an old motte whose fence was mostly fallen and a hall, chapel, chamber, kitchen and farm buildings: a broken down byre below the ditch is mentioned, so maybe we can assume that a ditch surrounded the main courtyard.10 At Bree in 1311 a ditch is noted around the park (another mark of a seigneurial presence) but how the curtilage around the stone house was defined is not mentioned.11 Corduff, Moycark, Synon, Ardmayle and Moyaliff all note curtilages along with gardens or hagards, without making any distinction.12 At Ardmayle, the motte was described as outside the curia, which looks as though the idea of the motte and bailey had been forgotten.13 We may summarize the appearance of the manorial curia itself from the documentary evidence for the estates, mainly those in the south-east of Ireland. The manorial centres were not usually related to centralized 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

settlements of the size and permanence of English villages, which might preserve the positions of their enclosures. The buildings themselves, set around a yard, were mostly of timber-frame construction, with occasional ones of stone normally described as chambers rather than as halls. The actual enclosure itself seems to have been a slight affair. It may have been no more than a good fence, no more elaborate than the enclosure necessary for any farmyard, to prevent theft and to retain beasts if they were brought inside. Settlements and timber structures have disappeared to leave no trace either in the present landscape or in the boundaries of later closes. It is in this way that we may explain the lack of physical remains. We may now look at the archaeology for evidence of sites which should be candidates for identification as manors. As elsewhere there are structures in Ireland which we may label hall-houses.14 These are rectangular buildings with a first-floor entry leading into what seems to be a room occupying the whole of that floor; there is often evidence of a second floor above. They may be distinguished from the halls on sites described as castles by their smaller size and the fact that there are no traces of subsidiary buildings attached to them. None of these hallhouses is set within an enclosure, except Moylough, which is the exception to prove the rule, for while it has a ditch around it, this hugs the hall so closely as to exclude room for any other buildings. While the sites with halls and enclosures are normally documented, and have owners from the greater or lesser baronage, only one of the eight or so buildings which we might identify as hall-houses appears in documents: Ballynacourty Court in County Galway which was a lesser manor of the De Burgh lords of Connacht. These hall-houses are mostly to be found around Galway Bay. The reason for this is probably because the thin soil over the limestone of the region hindered the growth of good oaks for building. By contrast, stone and lime were plentiful, so that the halls were built in stone, with timber confined to the roofs. The other candidates which might be identified as manorial enclosures are the moated sites. As Barry pointed out, however, they are not to be found at known manorial centres, but in relatively dispersed locations.15 They also have a particular distribution, being much more common in the lordships of south Leinster and eastern Munster than they are in those of north Leinster: there are only eighteen listed in the Archaeological Inventory of County Meath, as opposed to sixty-three mottes.16 The distribution of manors is not so selective. Moated sites in Ireland would seem to equate more or less exactly with those of the assarting free men of the waste in England. They occupy the same geographical location, and probably the same social position, associated with the free tenants; presumably they served the same functions of status and security against theft rather than military defence in Ireland as in England.

White 1932, 27–8. Sweetman 1875–86, vol. 5, no 172. ibid, no 255. White, 69–70; 154. ibid, 127–8. ibid, 52. ibid, 24. ibid, 25–6, 56–7, 61, 62, 64. ibid, 62.

14

15 16

46

Stell rightly points out that it is often difficult to distinguish between a hall-house and a tower, but this is less crucial here where the important point is the free-standing, rectangular building, which is based on a single space, the hall: Stell 1981, 23–4; 1985, 203. Barry 1977, 177. Moore 1987.

T. E. McNeill: The Gap below the Castle in Ireland

Table 1.

Holding

Mottes found

Number known

Earl’s demesne

14

2

More than 1 Fee

27

10

1 Fee

19

7

½ Fee

27

3

Less than ½ Fee

54

0

Unidentified holder

—

11

Totals

141

33

To understand the implications of the manorial sites further we may compare them with what we know of contemporary castles. There are three types of these: the earthworks (overwhelmingly mottes as far as we can tell), the stone enclosure castles and the tower houses, which are later and will be considered after the others. There are more remains of mottes than of the stone enclosures so we may start with them. Their distribution, in space and society is uneven. Spatially they are concentrated on the borders of the lordships of Meath, Louth and Ulster. This proliferation has been argued elsewhere as being the result of the threat posed by the Irish kingdoms of the North, principally the Ui Neill, during the later twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.17 If we attribute many of the Border mottes to a response to a military threat (which was not perceived by the other English lordships) we may look at the pattern of motte building in other circumstances. The lordship of Leinster was surveyed in 1247 before its division among the Marshal heiresses, and this has left us a full picture of the pattern of feudal settlement which we may compare to the pattern of motte building.18 We can see that mottes in Leinster did not spread widely through the land-holders of the lordship. Table 1 shows the correspondence between the thirty-three known mottes and their occurrence among the 141 places either held by the Earl in demesne or by tenants under one of the grades of military tenure.19 If we look at the proportions of surviving sites, not more than a half may be attributed to the major military tenants, the holders of one fee or more, yet they only account for just under one third of the holdings. By contrast, the eighty-one small holdings only seem to generate three mottes. Even if all the mottes found at places whose holders cannot now be identified were to be attributed to the lesser holders, they would still be under represented. Also noteworthy are the relatively few mottes apparently erected on lands held by the Earl. If we consider that the purpose of motte building was to serve as defence 17 18 19

to estates, presumably against either internal or external enemies, then this is an odd pattern. Neither the Earl, who certainly had the necessary resources to do so, nor the lesser tenants who should have had them, seem to have been much motivated to erect mottes. This looks much more like a pattern dictated by social prestige rather than by military defence or material function. This, too, would account for the curious dearth of identifiable earthwork castles in the English lordships of English Munster. Mottes over much of the English land were erected either for a restricted military purpose or else as a sign of high status among the major tenants. This latter might not prevail in each lordship, which serves to emphasis the formal nature of motte building. There are both large and small castles built of stone. Of the latter, we have already noted the stone hallhouses. There is a group of small polygonal enclosure castles which seem also to have been built in the later thirteenth century. They are apparently to be found on the borders of English lordships rather than at centres of power, and their simple form implies that they served a limited function: I would suggest that they were for the stationing of small bands of footsoldiers there at times of potential trouble.20 This leaves the major castles, defined as those with a hall building within an enclosure equipped with a gate house or angle towers. Some forty-one castles may be included within this definition, whether they are of English design, or of an Anglo-Irish variation. All can be attributed to owners who are either the King or his tenantsin-chief. There are none which do not lie on land which we may identify as belonging to a major baron. It is remarkable how they appear to be confined to such a particular class of society alone. What we seem to have here is a formal restriction to the construction of castles, either mottes in Leinster or Munster, or the building of stone castles. Only when faced with the threat of Ui Neill ambitions into eastern Ulster and Meath did the practice of castle building seem to leave this particular group. This would not be remarkable if there were a proliferation of lesser manorial sites below those of the major castles.

McNeill 1988. Brooks 1950. McNeill 1989–90.

20

47

McNeill 1994.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800-1600

What we seem to have is a position where the various structures seem to fall into quite precisely defined roles. The major barons build mottes, or stone castles. The moated sites seem confined to the class of free tenants, away from the manorial centres which are themselves left with flimsy enclosures which prove to be ephemeral; not only the enclosure itself being lost, but its boundaries not surviving into later division of the land. Finally, of course, conspicuous by their absence are more than a handful of castles attributable to Irish lords; Welsh and Scots Gaelic lords built them but not the Irish. The whole has a remarkable appearance of a precise and tidily arranged social structure; it is as though the lordships established in late twelfth-century Ireland were organised on very strict feudal classifications. If so, it broke down in the later fourteenth century, when we enter a period dominated by the tower house. We may leave aside the contentious issues of date and origins here and treat them as a phenomenon principally of the fifteenth century. There are several thousand surviving examples, although again they are not evenly distributed throughout the island. They do not replace the great lords’ building of major enclosure castles: Askeaton, Adare or Granny show that. At one end of the social scale, some major lords built them: at the other, we find them built for priests and richer townsmen. The greatest proportion of them, however, as shown by their numbers and rural distribution, were the houses of the minor lords and gentry. They seem to proliferate particularly where land was redistributed, either where families seized land and their control fragmented through subdivision,21 or where the former free tenant families increased their power over against the great lords, and became free holders.22 In County Tipperary we may see this change in the structure of society was allied to a change in agriculture and settlement as the grain-based farms of the thirteenth century changed to a pastoral base, and took in areas or formerly neglected upland, in line with the changes at the same time in the rest of Europe. This social spread is exactly what we could not see around 1300 and it shows us how we should be looking at tower houses; as the social equivalent of manor houses in England. Physically, they are different, of course, and in that difference lies the interest of their interpretation. The existence and stress on the tower is not such a major difference in itself, because the tower was always a powerful symbol for mediaeval lords, and we see it in manors from Stokesay to Edlingham. To reduce the manor buildings to a tower is, however, quite another matter. To an English eye, at least one from the south, this at once looks as though the whole point of the structure is for defence, as opposed to the relaxed and peaceful manorial enclosure of England. Closer analysis of tower houses argues against this. Not only are the towers inherently weak in themselves, but wherever they are more elaborated, they become less defensive. In Meath, the larger towers have turrets, which provide extra rooms, but 21 22

the designers positively refused to take advantage of defensive possibilities they offered: neither providing the flanking loops in general, nor controlling the entrance in particular.23 In eastern Munster the elaboration of the wallhead defences in the larger towers goes hand in hand with designs which prevent any circulation around the wallwalk.24 None appears to have been more defensive than an English manor house with a good wall behind a moat, when we know that the number of men inside it was far too small to talk seriously of defence. Both are essentially about display or status. We may explain the building of towers as simply another means to achieve the same purpose as the manor house, but this leaves out the consequences of this choice. Towers provide quite a different set of rooms from those found within the domestic buildings of a manorial enclosure. Tower houses normally provide minimally a strong storage room, a public room on the first floor, with a private chamber above. Extra floors and turrets give more small rooms and chambers: anything like a real hall is conspicuous by its absence. These are really chamber towers. Outside, only a minority (around a quarter) of towers have walled enclosures (known as bawns), and virtually none have stone buildings which might serve as halls. If there were halls attached to the towers, they were not given the same importance, of material construction, or of protection, that the tower was.25 The same applies to the agricultural buildings which we find listed in the manorial extents of around 1300. If they existed, surely they should have been surrounded by a wall in most cases, not just in the minority. The bawn seems like an optional extra, not an essential part of the normal situation. One part of the explanation for all this lies in the change in the farming economy between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. Ireland was marginal as part of the corn-growing agriculture of the period of expansion. It made excellent sense to convert to a much stronger pastoral base in the changed circumstances. As a result farmers were able to expand the area of land which could see as part of the productive core of their estates. This was an economy in which the Irish lords could participate on much more equal terms. On the evidence of the building of towers and churches, the fifteenth century was one of genuine, if modest prosperity for the whole country. Socially, for the pattern of settlement, it involved considerable change. The manorial centre of a corn-based farm required an enclosure and a range of buildings, which were much less important for a cattle-based economy. So, too, with employment: a relatively large and centralised work force was much less necessary for the new regime. A chamber tower was all that a lord needed for living with his family and a smaller household, shedding the staff of famuli of an earlier system. The tower made complete sense: a symbol of status, providing all the accommodation 23 24 25

Mitchel 1986; ni Loingsigh 1995. Neill 1983.

48

Abraham 1991. See also Sweetman and Buckley 1991, 302. McKenna 1984. One of these rare examples is that of Athclare, Co Louth, where a rectangular building attached to the tower is clearly of one build with it; the tower quoins only start at the eaves level of this presumed hall. Sweetman and Buckley 1991, 302.

T. E. McNeill: The Gap below the Castle in Ireland

he needed, yet secure against minor disturbance and theft like the enclosure of the manor house. This has led us to see the manors as part of two changes between the Ireland of around 1300 and the country 150 years later. One is the working-out of changes in the market and economy of farming, when hides replaced corn as the main cash crop, which were part of a Europe-wide condition. The other is in the social pattern of the sites which survive, or which we know about. In 1300, the social position of each of the types of sites seems to have been curiously clearly defined. Castles were for the baronage alone; moated sites for the free tenants, leaving what was emerging in England as a lower fringe of manorial sites as subcastles, represented in Ireland as unimpressive farms. By the middle of the fifteenth century this had changed, to a country where the lesser lords and gentry had a range of large or small towers as centres of their estates. This was part of a loosening of the grip of the great lords over their tenants, who might rise to free holders, or else a product of the fragmentation of lordship which affected particularly the west and the south. The parallel between this and the interpretation offered by Dixon for the building of towers along the Anglo-Scots border is striking.26 In both the tower is associated with the rise of a new class of lesser lords, freed from the power of the magnates, at a time of a shift to a much more pastoral agricultural regime. What is absent from this picture is the conventional one of war as the dominant force in mediaeval Ireland. If normal manors had their centres defined by such a flimsy enclosures that they could disappear from the countryside in this way, this does not sound like a society living under continual physical threat of violence. Much of this picture is, of course, based on flawed evidence, usually men seeking to reduce their tax burden or to evade duties by pleading that their lands are devastated or unsafe. Some of it is created by running together all the events recorded in Ireland, which (being derived from Annals) tend to stress violence, without noting that the individual incidents may be quite widely distributed in time and space. This notwithstanding, it should be worth placing the manorial sites against the background of our knowledge of other sites. The towers appear at first sight to be defensive remnants of a war-torn world, but when we examine them, we can see them as the chamber towers of minor lords with small households to accommodate. They are no more a symptom of internal strife than the moated manor of fifteenth-century England is of the Wars of the Roses, which provide far harder evidence of war than we can find among the small-scale disturbances of Ireland of the time.

26

ABSTRACT Although it is clear that Irish manors of the thirteenth century had centres, where seigneurial domestic and farm buildings were set around courtyards, these have not been located on the ground. Neither hall houses not the existing moated sites correspond in distribution to manorial sites, which must have been ephemeral, both in their physical structure and in the settlements they generated. This can be related to the general pattern of Irish castle building of the thirteenth century, which seems to have been marked by a formal assigning of sites to particular social classes and functions. This formal distribution did not apply to the numerous tower houses of the later middle ages. They act socially as the manorial centres of the period, but provide a different set of accommodation to the image of the manor house as derived from the south of England. They arise from changes in the social and economic patterns of Ireland resulting from the crisis of the fourteenth century. They provide chamber towers for the minor lords and gentry, with the reduced accommodation suitable for the emphasis on cattle farming and served by small households which prevailed in Ireland during the fifteenth century. In neither case do these manorial structures fit well with the conventional picture of mediaeval Ireland as a war-torn society. RESUMÉ Bien qu’il soit clair que les manoirs irlandais du XIIIe siècle avaient un centre d’administration, où les bâtiments seigneuriaux, les communs et la ferme étaient disposés autour d’une cour, on n’en a pas retrouvé de vestiges sur le terrain. Ni les maisons pourvues de salles, ni les sites subsistants entourés de douves ne correspondent dans leur répartition à des sites manoriaux qui ont dû être éphémères, autant dans leur structure que dans l’habitat qu’ils ont généré. Cela peut être rapproché du modèle général du château fort irlandais du XIIIe siècle qui semble marqué par une correspondance forte entre les sites et des classes sociales et des fonctions bien définies. Cette répartition ne s’applique pas aux nombreuses tours résidentielles du bas Moyen Âge. Cellesci jouent le rôle social du centre d’administration des manoirs de l’époque, mais présentent un programme différent de l’image du manoir diffusée à partir du sud de l’Angleterre. Elles sont la conséquence des changements dans les modèles économiques et sociaux de l’Irlande après la crise du XIVe siècle. Elles présentent des tours avec chambres à l’étage pour les petits seigneurs et la gentry, avec un programme restreint, adapté à une économie d’élevage et utilisant peu de serviteurs, dont le modèle prévalait en Irlande au XVe siècle. Dans aucun de ces cas, ces structures manoriales ne conviennent à l’image traditionnelle d’une Irlande médiévale déchirée par les guerres. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Obwohl es klar ist, dass irische Gutshöfe des 13. Jh. ein Zentrum hatten wo Herrenwohn-und Landwirtsgebäude in

Dixon, P forthcoming.

49

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800-1600

Mitchel, P 1986. The distribution and location of tower houses in eastern Galway, unpublished BA dissertation, The Queen’s University of Belfast Moore, M J 1987. Archaeological Inventory of County Meath, Dublin Neill, K 1983. The manor of Knockgraffon, unpublished MA thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast ni Loingsigh, M 1995. ‘The castles of north Donegal and their relationships to the landholding of the late medieval Gaelic lordships’, unpublished MLitt thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast Simms, A 1988. ‘The geography of Irish manors’, in J Bradley (ed), Settlement and Society in Medieval Ireland, Kilkenny Stell, G 1981. ‘Late medieval defences in Scotland’, in D H Caldwell (ed), Scottish Weapons and Fortifications, Edinburgh Stell, G 1985. ‘The Scottish medieval castle, form, function and “evolution”’, in K Stringer (ed), Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland, Edinburgh Sweetman, D and Buckley, V 1991. Archaeological Survey of Co Louth, Dublin Sweetman, H S (ed) 1875–86. Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland […], 5 vols, London, vol. 5, 1302–7, no. 172 White, N B (ed) 1932. The Red Book of Ormond, Dublin

den Innenhofen errichtet wurden, sind diese bis jetzt nicht ausfindig gemacht worden. Weder Saalhäuser noch existierende Strukturen mit Burggraben, haben eine Verbindung mit der Verbreitung der gutshofartigen Strukturen, welche wohl nicht sehr lange existierten, was die physikalische Struktur und auch den daraus folgenden Siedlungen anbetrifft. Dies hangt direkt mit dem generellen Muster der Errichtung von irischen Burgen im 13. Jh. zusammen, welches dadurch gekennzeichnet wurde, indem Landstücke, bestimmten sozialen Schichten mit speziellen Aufgaben, formell zugewiesen worden waren. Diese formelle Verteilung traf nicht auf die anzähligen Turmhäuser des späteren Mittelalters zu. Diese spielten eine soziale Rolle insofern, dass sie die gutshofartigen Zentren der Zeit waren, aber die Unterkunftsarrangements wie wir sie von einem typischen südenglischen Gutshof kennen, sind ganz anders. Sie ergaben sich durch die Änderungen im sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Muster von Irland, als direktes Resultat der Krise im 14. Jh.. Sie beherbergten Turmhäuser für die wenig bedeutenderen Lords und Gutsherren, mit reduzierter Unterkunft die für die Landwirtschaft von Vieh geeignet war und vom kleineren Haushalt benutzt wurde. Dies war in Irland vorherrschend während des 15. Jh. der Fall. In beiden Fällen passen diese gutshofartigen Strukturen nicht zusammen mit dem konventionellen Bild von einem mittelalterlichen Irland, mit einer vom Kriege zerrissenen Gesellschaft. Bibliography Abraham, K 1991. ‘Patterns of land holding and architectural patronage in late medieval Meath’, unpublished PhD thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast Barry, T B 1977. Medieval Moated Sites of S-E Ireland, British Archaeological Reports, no 35 Brooks, E St J 1950. Knights’ Fees in Counties Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny, Dublin Cosgrove, A (ed) 1987. A New History of Ireland, Oxford Davies, O and Quinn, D B 1941. ‘The Irish Pipe Roll of 14 John’, Ulster J Archaeol, 4, supplement Empey, C A 1982. ‘Medieval Knocktopher: a study in manorial settlement’, Old Kilkenny Review, 2, 1982, 329–42 McKenna, M E 1984. ‘Evidence for the use of timber in medieval tower houses: a regional study in Lecale and Tipperary’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 47, 171–3 McNeill, T E 1980. Anglo-Norman Ulster, Edinburgh McNeill, T E 1988. ‘Hibernia pacata et castellata’, Château Gaillard, 14, 261–75 McNeill, T E 1989–90. ‘Early castles in Leinster’, Journal of Irish Archaeology, 5, 57–64 McNeill, T E 1994. ‘Castles and the changing pattern of border conflict in Ireland’, Château Gaillard, 17

50

Scottish royal residences of the later Middle Ages: some aspects of domestic planning by

John G. Dunbar

INTRODUCTION

least three of its corners. Subsequently, an oblong towerhouse built on a different alignment, was intruded into one end of the hall-house, a considerable portion of which was removed to accommodate it. The tower-house can probably be ascribed to the years after 1390, when Robert III (1390–1406) granted a license authorising his brother-in-law, Sir Malcolm Drummond (who had married the Countess of Mar), to erect a tower at Kindrochit. It is not known when, or by whom, the hall-house was built, but to judge from what little remains of it the closest parallels are with a group of Scottish and Northern English halls of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, several of which have angleturrets.3 The fashion for tower-houses may have owed something to recent building activity at Dundonald, Ayrshire (Figure 1.2).4 Here, in the late thirteenth century, the Stewarts had built a great courtyard castle with two twin-towered gatehouses. This was partially destroyed during the Wars of Independence and it may have been in the aftermath of Robert Stewart’s accession to the throne in 1371 that a new building campaign was begun. The east gatehouse was abandoned and the courtyard considerably reduced in area, while upon the stump of the west gatehouse there was reared a large, oblong tower-house. The work is not documented, but the tower bears the royal arms as well as those of the Stewarts. The plan of the tower is puzzling. As it stands it contains two main vertical divisions, each covered with a barrel-vault. Above an unheated and poorly lit chamber presumably designed for storage purposes the lower contained a well-appointed hall, which, in the absence of a separate great hall, could have provided accommodation for public functions as well as for day to day needs of the royal household. The upper division contained a handsome, mock-rib vaulted hall having a servery at its lower end and a closet and latrine at the upper end. This was presumably the king’s hall, but there is no provision for a chamber or for accommodation for the queen. It seems possible, therefore, that there was originally another storey containing additional chambers, which would have brought the tower to a height comparable to that of Alloa, Clackmannanshire and Borthwick, Midlothian. It is, of course, the courtyard buildings that tend to disappear first and this can give the misleading impression that the tower-house or hall-house has always stood alone. Another site where this has occurred is the castle of Newark (Figure 1.3),5 which following its forfeiture to the crown was used both as a hunting seat and

When James I (1406–37) returned from captivity in England in 1424 he found the crown lands greatly depleted, comprising little but the Stewart patrimony in Bute, Ayrshire and Cowal to supplement the prime holdings in the Forth Valley, with their major residences at Edinburgh, Stirling and Linlithgow. Almost at once, however, the forfeiture of the Albany Stewarts brought the earldoms of Fife and Menteith into the possession of the king, and of the two key castles thus acquired, Falkland became one of the most favoured palaces of James IV (1488–1513) and James V (1512–42), while Doune remained with the crown until the 1520s. James I also annexed the earldom of Mar, with its castles of Kildrummy and Kindrochit, while the forfeiture of the Earl of Atholl in 1437 added the lands of Methven, with its notable castle of the same name, and the forfeiture of the Black Douglases in 1455 brought a further crop of castles and houses, including Threave, Darnaway and Newark in the Forest of Ettrick.1 Of the three dozen or so properties that might be described as regular royal residences at this period, only about half survive and all of these have been substantially altered by reconstruction, decay or partial demolition. In seeking to identify the chief characteristics of the royal houses and castles of the period, therefore, I have had to concentrate on those for which the most evidence is available, namely the great palaces of Fife and the Forth Valley. But I have also included a number of smaller or more remotely situated residences even though these are, in general, less well documented and less well preserved. As the title indicates, the focus of the paper is on the domestic and residential functions of the royal houses. THE LESSER RESIDENCES Starting, then, with these smaller houses and adopting a broadly chronological approach, it is worth casting a glance firstly at the castle of Kindrochit (Figure 1.1) in the braes of Mar.2 Although the earldom of Mar was not annexed to the crown until 1435, evidence for the use of Kindrochit as a royal residence comes mainly from the 1370s and 1380s, when Robert II (1371–90) was an almost annual visitor during the hunting season. The existing remains are fragmentary and our knowledge of the site derives almost entirely from excavations carried out by Dr W D Simpson in 1925–6. These suggested that the castle occupied by Robert II was a huge, rectangular hall-house having square or multangular turrets projecting from at

3 1 2

4

Murray 1975, 72–3; ER 1878–908, vi, lxxii–cxlvi. Simpson 1923, 1928 and 1949, 42–4, 60, 68.

5

51

Dixon 1992, 87–95; 1993, 27–32. Simpson 1950; Ewart 1994. RCAHMS 1957, 61–5; MacGibbon and Ross 1887–92, i, 247–50.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

as the administrative centre of the Forest of Ettrick. The existing remains comprise an oblong tower-house standing within a mid sixteenth-century barmkin. This presumably replaces an earlier enclosure containing a great hall and several houses and chambers, all of which are mentioned in fifteenth-century documents.6 It is sometimes argued that the lower part of the building belongs to the early fifteenth-century Douglas occupation, but I think it more likely that, apart from the cap-houses, the whole tower dates from the rebuilding that seems to have been undertaken by the Crown during the 1460s.7 Only the lowest portion of the tower is vaulted and this contains a storeroom with a chamber above, which could have been a hall for senior members of the household. The principal entrance was on the first floor, which contained what may have been the king’s hall, together with several closets and a rather cramped kitchen. From the upper end of this hall a private stair rose to what were probably the king’s outer and inner chambers, each provided with its own closet and latrine. The arrangement on the third floor, which possibly functioned as the queen’s lodging when required, was broadly similar. Contemporary with Newark, but designed primarily for purposes of defence, is the castle of Ravenscraig (Figure 1.5),8 on the north shore of the Forth Estuary, whose construction was initiated by James II (1437–60) shortly before his death. Work was continued by James’s widow, Mary of Guelders, who owned the property, but with her death late in 1463, operations came to a halt with the castle still unfinished. It was subsequently completed by the Sinclair family on a smaller scale than originally envisaged. The plan comprised a central block flanked by Dshaped towers laid across the neck of a coastal promontory, with a kitchen and other ancillary buildings at the rear. As the castle stands today, the west tower reads as an independent unit with a series of vertically stacked chambers providing the same sort of accommodation as an equivalent-sized tower-house. The east tower contains additional chambers, while the central block comprises a gun platform set over a vaulted cellarage which is pierced by the entrance passage. But if, as is now generally believed, only the lower parts of the castle belong to the first phase (for which the exchequer rolls record an expenditure of less than £700), it is possible that the original design placed less emphasis on the needs of artillery and more on the residential requirements of the queen mother. In that case the central block may have been intended to contain a first-floor hall linked at its upper end to a royal lodging in the west tower. Bridging the gap between the smaller and less frequently visited royal residences and the larger and more regularly occupied ones is the castle of Rothesay (Figure 1.4) on the Isle of Bute.9 The early castle was, in fact, quite 6

7 8 9

an extensive one, containing a great hall, chapel and several drum-towers, the largest of which may have contained the royal chambers. The later royal lodging described in a contemporary document as ‘the great tower called le dungeoun’, seems to have been begun by James IV c 1512,10 and completed some thirty years later by James V. What the early sixteenth-century clerk described as a dungeon we would call a residential gate-tower, for James IV’s lodging was built directly outside the main gate of the earlier castle and incorporated an extended entrance passage and guardroom. The upper floors are incomplete, but the first floor contained what was probably the king’s hall, while the second contained what may have been his outer and inner chambers. The queen could have been housed above, or in one of the adjacent drum-towers, which communicated with the lodging by means of the earlier wall-walk. THE GREATER RESIDENCES Turning now to the major royal palaces, it has to be said that, although these are in general better preserved and more fully documented, they all present problems of analysis. All I can hope to do within the limits of this paper is to sketch their development and outline what we know or can infer of their domestic planning arrangements. I shall start with the two palaces that originated as monastic guest-houses, namely Dunfermline and Holyrood. Dunfermline had been a royal residence since the eleventh century.11 It seems to have been much frequented during the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries and to a lesser extent during the reigns of James IV and James V, while following the abbey’s annexation to the Crown in 1587 the palace was enlarged and remodelled to become the residence of Queen Anne of Denmark and the birthplace of the future Charles I. In their final form the main buildings of the palace of Dunfermline (Figure 2.3) comprised three ranges grouped round an irregular courtyard immediately to the west of the abbey. The south-west range, which alone survives, probably formed part of the medieval royal guesthouse and appears to range in date from the late fourteenth century to the late sixteenth century. It has been much altered, but seems originally to have comprised a large, well-lit hall set over a rib-vaulted undercroft, with a chamber at the upper (north-west) end and a kitchen at the lower (south-east) end. What stands out from the plan is the very large size of the hall, which, even allowing for the servery at the lower end, is as big as James I’s great hall at Linlithgow Palace. Indeed, the whole arrangement, with kitchen, great hall and chamber en suite is very similiar to that found both at Linlithgow and in the royal castle of Urquhart.12 If this comparison is valid, it would suggest that the southwest range at Dunfermline was designed primarily for

Historical MSS Commission, 14th Report 1894, Appendix 3, 25; ER 1878–1908, vi, 227, 545; viii, 143. ER 1878-1908, vii, 452, 477-8, 498, 501, 525, 528. Simpson 1938; Stell 1981, 40–2; Fawcett 1994, 286–8. Simpson 1939; Pringle 1995; Hewison 1893–5, ii, 105–32.

10 11

12

52

TA 1877–1978, iv, 335, 345. Douglas-Irvine 1910; Fawcett 1990b; RCAHMS 1933, 106–21; Gifford 1988, 43, 175–85; Howard 1995, 26–30. Tabraham and Stewart 1994, 3, 7.

John G. Dunbar: Scottish royal residences of the later Middle Ages: some aspects of domestic planning

occasions of state and that the private quarters of the royal family lay elsewhere, presumably in the adjacent northwest range. The undercrofts of both hall and chamber were heated and may in part have been used as living accommodation. The kitchen probably served the monastic refectory as well as the great hall. The refectory itself seems never to have formed part of the palace, but late seventeenth-century views depict the west claustral range as entire,13 so it is possible that, as at Holyrood, this range was at some stage converted to provide lodgings for officials. Holyroodhouse is better documented than Dunfermline, but I shall look briefly only at the two main phases of sixteenth-century building operations.14 In the first (Figure 2.1), spanning the years 1501–4, James IV built a new palace to accommodate his English bride Margaret Tudor. Almost nothing of this now survives, but the general arrangement was not unlike that at Dunfermline. The palace comprised two wings pushed out westwards from the west claustral range of the abbey to meet a third range running north and south, which possibly incorporated part of the earlier royal guest-house. Unlike Dunfermline, where the king presumably worshipped in some designated part of the abbey church, Holyrood had its own chapel, which occupied the first floor of the north range. At the same level, and directly opposite, was the queen’s lodging, which may also have extended into the west range. It can be inferred from a contemporary account of the royal wedding that the king’s lodging occupied the remainder of the west range.15 The same source indicates that the royal couple each occupied three main rooms (hall, great chamber and inner chamber) and suggests that the two suites were laid out end to end. Among the other buildings of the palace was a great hall, which seems to have stood on the south side of the cloister and may originally have served as the monastic refectory. Likewise, the west claustral range may already have been appropriated to serve as officials’ lodgings, although we have no firm evidence of this until the next reign. In the second phase of work (Figure 2.2), undertaken between 1528 and 1536, James V began by adding a new private lodging to the north-west corner of his father’s palace and then went on to remodel most of the remaining buildings of the palace. The new royal lodging, completed in 1532, took the form of a massive oblong tower with engaged rounds at the angles. It contained two identical sets of rooms placed one above the other, the king’s on the first floor and the queen’s above. After an interval of three years work began on the courtyard buildings, the west range being rebuilt to accommodate a suite of reception rooms linked to the king’s lodging in the great tower. Two other linked rooms, known as the north chamber (subsequently the privy chamber) and the council chamber, were formed in the

north range in place of the chapel, which was transferred to the south range. Among the greater royal residences the one that shows the earliest evidence of domestic planning arrangements is Edinburgh Castle (Figure 3.1).16 Here, between about 1368 and 1379, was built a substantial Lplan tower known as David’s Tower (after its founder, David II (1329–71), of which the lower floors survive. It is likely that the tower served from the first as a royal lodging and above the entrance floor there seems to have been a stack of chambers, each perhaps with a closet in the wing. Probably within a century or so of its erection, the reentrant angle of the tower was enclosed to form a second chamber at each level. The precise layout cannot be determined, but a possible arrangement would place the king’s hall, chamber and closet on the first floor, with a similar suite for the queen above. During the 1430s we hear of the construction of a great chamber, probably in the area immediately to the south-west of David’s Tower. Part of this may have been incorporated in the new royal lodging that James IV erected here in the 1490s and which was itself afterwards absorbed within the early seventeenth-century palace that now occupies the site. James IV’s lodging was laid out horizontally, its lower floor (above a basement) comprising what seems to have been a three-piece arrangement, including a pair of reception rooms (hall and great chamber) perhaps originally designed to supplement the earlier royal suite in David’s Tower. James IV’s other main contribution at Edinburgh was the erection of a new great hall which, with the new lodging, an arsenal and the earlier chapel of St Mary, brought the principal buildings of the castle into a more or less regular courtyard layout. When erected in about the late fourteenth century the castle of Doune (Figure 3.2 ) was not, strictly speaking, a royal castle for its builder was the king’s younger brother, the Duke of Albany, guardian of the realm from 1388 to 1420.17 The castle was built round a courtyard, the principal accommodation being incorporated within a massive frontal block, part of which rose two storeys higher than the remainder as a residential tower. The first floor contained a good-sized great hall with an adjacent hall and chamber (possibly two chambers) for the Duke. Each hall had its own forestair from the courtyard, while above the Duke’s hall, which straddled the castle gateway, was a second hall of similer size, again with its own chamber. Reading back from later seigneurial residences, such as James V’s tower at Holyroodhouse, it seems likely that this suite was intended for the Duchess, subsequently functioning as the queen’s lodging. There is evidence to show that it was intended to erect two-storeyed ranges on the W and S sides of the courtyard and it seems probable that these would have included a chapel. The palace of Linlithgow (Figure 3.4) has a long and complex building history,18 but here I shall focus on the reign of James IV, by which time all the principal

13

16

14 15

Slezer 1693. Fawcett 1988; RCAHMS 1951, 144–53; Dunbar 1963 and 1984. Leland 1770, iv, 290–300.

17 18

53

MacIvor 1993; RCAHMS 1951, 1–25; Fawcett 1986. MacGibbon and Ross 1887–92, i, 418–29; Pringle 1987. RCAHMS 1929, 219–31; Campbell 1995; Dunbar 1984; Pringle 1989.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 and James V.20 It was James IV who moved the palace to a new site immediately to the south of the earlier castle. Between about 1501 and his death in 1513 the king built a new palace round three sides of a courtyard, the principal buildings comprising a royal lodging, chapel and great hall. Only a fragment of the royal lodging in the east range has survived and the planning arrangements are uncertain. The chapel occupied the first floor of the south range, while the great hall, a smaller version of the one at Stirling, stood above an undercroft on the north side of the courtyard. James V left the great hall unaltered, but reconstructed the south and east ranges of the palace (Figure 3.3), most of the work being carried out in 1537– 41. In the south range the chapel was rebuilt above an additional floor containing chambers for courtiers. This range was also extended westwards by the addition of an imposing gatehouse, with lodgings for the keeper and other officials on the upper floors. The east range was remodelled, a new second floor being built and spacious galleries added on either side of the cross-house to provide views over the gardens below.21 The layout is again uncertain, but it is possible that the first-floor rooms now became a reception suite, like the contemporary west range at Holyrood, and that the private chambers of the royal couple were moved to the top floor.

buildings of the late medieval palace were in place. The most remarkable feature of the plan, namely the nearsymmetrical layout of the courtyard with its prominent corner staircases, was the result of James’s own building activites. The east range, however, went back to the 1420s and 1430s. This comprised a great hall placed directly above the principal gateway and having a kitchen at its lower end and several chambers at its upper end. Much of the south range at this level was taken up by the chapel, while at the south-west corner there was a tower containing a stack of individual chambers. The royal lodgings occupied the west range, the king’s suite comprising three main rooms placed end to end, as apparently in the near contemporary lodging at Holyrood, together with several closets. The queen probably occupied the almost identical suite on the second floor, while the north range is likely to have contained lodgings for officials and quarters for the keeper. The circulation arrangements were especially well planned, for as well as the four corner staircases there were corridor galleries on at least two, and probably three, sides of the courtyard. Evidence for the domestic layout of Stirling Castle (Figure 3.5) comes mainly from the reigns of James IV and James V, both of whom undertook extensive building campaigns there.19 In 1496–7 James IV built himself a new lodging, almost certainly the so-called King’s Old Building on the west side of the inner close. Set above a vaulted cellarage, this seems to have comprised a three-roomed suite, the inner chamber being contained in a wing set at right angles to the main block. The arrangement was broadly similar to that in James IV’s lodgings at Linlithgow and Holyrood. There seems to have been no upper floor, so the queen’s chambers, which are on record in the years following the king’s marriage, must have been elsewhere. A few years later James built a very grand hall on the east side of the inner close, the north side of which was already occupied by a chapel. The south side of the close was filled c 1538–42 by the building known as James V’s palace. This comprised new lodgings for the king and queen set out, all on one level, round three sides of a hollow square. The royal couple each occupied three principal rooms, named in the late 1550s as hall, outer chamber and chamber, together with two or more closets. The two chambers (i.e. bedchambers) were set back to back. Because the palace was built on sloping ground the designer was able to provide ground-floor access to the royal suite, while placing most of the principal chambers above a vaulted cellarage. There was also a direct link with the great hall via a bridge. The upper floors presumably contained lodgings for officials, while an earlier tower on the south side (the Prince’s Tower), may have housed other members of the royal family. There was also a west range, which was demolished in the seventeenth century. Like Stirling, the late medieval palace of Falkland was the product of major building campaigns by James IV

CONCLUSIONS The physical and documentary evidence that I have drawn upon in this paper is fragmentary and it would be foolish to construct neat conclusions or try to discern clear patterns of development. It can be inferred from an account of the Scottish king’s household compiled in the late thirteenth century that the principal components of the royal residence were ‘the hall, the chamber and the chapel of the king’22 and this evidently continued to be the case during the period that we are now considering. To this inner core there was added, as circumstances required, accommodation for the queen and other members of the royal family, as also for guests and for the various other departments of the household, such as the wardrobe, kitchen and stables, each staffed by its own complement of officials. All told, the king’s household seems to have numbered well over 300 during the 1530s, while the queen’s household would have been somewhat smaller. These figures, although no more than rough estimates, can be compared with estimates of about 500 and 600 persons for the households of Henry VIII and Francis I respectively.23 That no particular building type or layout was prescribed for the design of a royal residence is demonstrated by the fact that the king’s great hall could 20

21

19

22

Fawcett 1990a, 175–93; 1995; RCAHMS 1966, 179–223; Dunbar 1984.

23

54

RCAHMS 1933, 135–42; Puttfarken et al. 1989; Dunbar 1984 and 1991. It is clear from the structural evidence that the cross-house formed part of the original east range. The galleries first come on record in 1531–2 (MW 1957–82, i, 112). Bateson 1904, 41. Thomas 1995, 3 and references there cited.

John G. Dunbar: Scottish royal residences of the later Middle Ages: some aspects of domestic planning

function as effectively in a tent, as when he was on campaign,24 as in a purpose-built structure such as that provided within the palace of Linlithgow. Likewise the ecclesiastical (as opposed to the chancery) functions of the royal chapel could if necessary, be accommodated within an oratory opening off one of the principal chambers, as at Doune and perhaps also at Newark and Ravenscraig, where no separate chapel is known to have existed. It is noticeable that the buildings of the lesser residences were, in general, more loosely grouped than those of the palaces. At Dundonald and Rothesay the chapel and ancillary buildings lay scattered across the courtyard and Newark and Ravenscraig may have presented a similar appearance. At Dunfermline and Doune, however, there were linked ranges round the perimeter of the courtyard and in some of the later palaces, such as Linlithgow and Stirling, there was clearly a deliberate attempt to achieve a regular quadrilateral layout with direct communication throughout. So far as can be established, the hall and other principal chambers were almost invariably placed at first- or upper-floor level, Scottish custom in this respect being more akin to Continental than to English practice. At Edinburgh and Stirling the great hall reads as a ground-floor hall on the courtyard side because of the slope of the underlying rock, but neither there nor elsewhere do we find anything approaching the classic medieval English ground-floor hall with its uniform arrangement of service and chamber wings. In some residences, such as Dunfermline, Doune and Linlithgow, the hall was fully integrated within the range or building of which it formed part, as was customary on the Continent,25 but relatively uncommon in England (but cf. Bolton, Yorkshire). Elsewhere, however, and noticeably in James IV’s work at Stirling, Edinburgh and Falkland, the great hall was designed as an independent unit in the English manner (eg, Eltham and Hampton Court). Chapels seem to have been fully integrated wherever possible, but this could not be done at Edinburgh and Stirling, because pre-exising chapels were retained in use. In the smaller residences there was hardly space to provide the king with a separate private lodging, although nearly all had separate great halls. A number of the larger residences, however, seem to have incorporated separate private suites. Among these we may certainly include James V’s Holyrood, and probably also Edinburgh (for a short period only) and James V’s Falkland. We have no firm evidence as to the way in which royal lodgings were planned before about 1500 and surviving houses of earlier date have to be interpreted mainly by reading back from what we know – which is not a great deal – of sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century practice. With the erection of David’s Tower at Edinburgh Castle and the adoption of the tower-house as a favourite seigneurial building-type, it is scarcely surprising that a

number of later royal lodgings took this form. Indeed, all the smaller houses that I have described incorporated tower-residences, as also did Doune Castle and James V’s palace of Holyrood. We know that at Holyrood the queen’s rooms were placed directly above the king’s and this makes it likely that the same arrangements were followed in other stacked lodgings.26 A similar system seems to have prevailed in France, although not without important exceptions, whereas in England, during the short period during which stacked lodgings were fashionable, it is thought that the king’s rooms usually occupied the higher of the two floors.27 In David’s Tower at Edinburgh Castle and in James V’s tower at Holyrood the lodging comprised two main rooms (hall and chamber or outer and inner chambers) with one or more closets. The outer chamber presumably functioned as a reception room and the inner as a more private living room and bedroom. In most of the tower-residences, such as Newark and Rothesay, however, the suite seems to have contained an additional room (the king’s hall) and a three-piece arrangement (plus closets) became general in the horizontally planned lodgings constructed in the larger residences during the reigns of James IV and V. These might comprise single suites, like James IV’s lodging at Stirling or twin suites placed either on the same level, as in James IV’s Holyrood and James V’s Stirling, or one above the other as probably at Linlithgow. Whatever the precise arrangement, the fact that the Scottish royal lodging of the period was invariably limited to three main rooms invites comparison with contemporary arrangements in France rather than with the increasingly complex room sequences of Tudor England.28 ABSTRACT Differences in planning between the greater royal residences and that of the lesser ensembles are brought out. Buildings of the smaller residences were, in general, more loosely grouped that those of the greater structures. Physical and documentary evidence is fragmentary and it would be unwise to construct neat conclusions or try to discern clear patterns of development. Nevertheless, the principal components of the royal residence were ‘the hall, the chamber and the chapel of the king’i; to this inner core was added, accommodation for the queen and other members of the royal family, as well as for guests and departments of the household, such as the wardrobe, kitchen and stables, each staffed by its own complement of officials. No particular building type or layout was prescribed for the design of a royal residence. The king’s great hall could function as effectively in a tent when he was on campaign, as in a purpose-built structure. Similarly the ecclesiastical (as opposed to the chancery) functions of the royal chapel could be accommodated within an oratory

26 27 24 25

TA 1877–1978, i, 293, 346. Thompson 1995, 9, 33, 74.

28

55

Dunbar 1984, 18–19. Thurley 1993, 18, 31, 41–3; Mesqui 1991–3, ii, 29, 122–3; MeirionJones et al 1993, 179. Baillie 1967; Thurley 135.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

were placed directly above the king’sii and this makes it likely that the same arrangements were followed in other stacked lodgings. A similar system seems to have prevailed in France, although not without important exceptions, whereas in England, during the short period during which stacked lodgings were fashionable, it is thought that the king’s rooms usually occupied the higher of the two floors. In Brittany it is the apartments of the wife which are generally situated over that of the husband, some sites having a discrete private secondary stairway linking the two.

grande salle et les chambres principales étaient presque invariablement à l’étage, la coutume écossaise étant en ce domaine plus proche de la pratique continentale que des habitudes anglaises. Il n’y a nulle part ici quelque chose approchant la classique salle médiévale anglaise, située au rez-de-chaussée, avec les services et les chambres disposés de manière uniforme dans les ailes. Dans quelques résidences, la grande salle était complètement intégrée dans le bâtiment dont elle faisait partie, comme cela est habituel sur le Continent, mais relativement peu courant en Angleterre. Ailleurs la grande salle était conçue comme une unité indépendante, à la manière anglaise. Dans les plus petites résidences, il y avait à peine assez de place pour réserver au roi des appartements privés séparés ; cependant presque toutes avaient des grandes salles séparées. Un certain nombre des résidences plus grandes semblent pourtant avoir comporté des appartements privés séparés. Un certain nombre d’appartements royaux tardifs ont la forme d’une maison-tour. A Holyrood, les appartements de la reine étaient directement situés audessus de ceux du roi et il semble que la même disposition ait été adoptée dans d’autres logis superposés. Un système similaire semble avoir prévalu en France, avec cependant d’importantes exceptions, alors qu’en Angleterre, pendant la courte période au cours de laquelle les logis superposés furent à la mode, on pense que les pièces réservées au roi occupaient habituellement l’étage le plus élevé. En Bretagne, ce sont en général les appartement de l’épouse qui sont situés au-dessus de ceux du mari ; certains sites ont un escalier privé secondaire reliant les deux appartements.

RÉSUMÉ Nous mettons ici en évidence des différences de programmes entre les résidences royales les plus importantes et celles de moindre envergure. Les bâtiments des résidences plus petites étaient, en général, moins regroupées que ceux des structures plus importantes. Les preuves matérielles et documentaires sont fragmentaires et il serait peu sérieux d’en tirer des conclusions définitives ou d’essayer de discerner des schémas clairs d’évolution. Néanmoins les principales composantes d’une résidence royale étaient « la grande salle, la chambre et la chapelle du roi ». A ce noyau central on ajoutait un logement pour la reine et les autres membres de la famille royale, ainsi que pour les invités, et des pièces pour la maisonée, comme la garde-robe, la cuisine et les écuries, chacune pourvue de ses propres serviteurs. Il n’y avait pas de type de bâtiment ou de disposition particulière prescrits pour le plan d’une résidence royale. Quand il était en campagne une tente pouvait aussi bien faire office de grande salle du roi qu’une structure construite à cet effet. De même les fonctions ecclésiastiques de la chapelle royale (au contraire de la chancellerie) pouvaient s’accommoder d’un oratoire ouvrant sur l’une des chambres principales ; dans plusieurs sites, il ne semble pas qu’une chapelle séparée ait existé. Dans les résidences plus petites, les bâtiments en général étaient moins regroupés que dans les palais. La

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Es wurden Planungsunterschiede zwischen den größeren königlichen Residenzen und den kleineren Ensembles herausgearbeitet. Die Gebäude kleinerer Residenzen waren insgesamt eher locker gruppiert als die größeren Strukturen. Erscheinungsbild und dokumentarische Zeugnisse sind fragmentarisch und es wäre unklug, eindeutige Ergebnisse zu konstruieren oder stringente Entwicklungsmuster erkennen zu wollen. Dennoch waren 'die Halle, das Gemach und die Kapelle des Königs' die Hauptbestandteile der königlichen Residenz; zu diesem inneren Kern wurden die Wohnung für die Königin und andere Mitglieder der königlichen Familie sowie Unterkünfte für Gäste und die Wirtschaftsgebäude wie Garderobe, Küche und Stallungen hinzugefügt, jeweils ausgestattet mit einer eigenen Dienerschaft. Für die Gestaltung einer königlichen Residenz war kein spezieller Gebäudetypus vorgeschieben. Als große Halle des Königs konnte ebenso effektiv ein Zelt während des Feldzugs wie auch ein zum spezifischen Gebrauch errichtetes Gebäude fungieren. In ähnlicher Weise konnte die kirchliche Funktion der königlichen Kapelle (im Gegensatz zur Funktion als Kanzlei) in einem Oratorium untergebracht sein, das sich zu einem der Hauptgemächer hin öffnete; mancherorts hat bekanntermaßen keine separate Kapelle existiert.

opening off one of the principal chambers; at several sites no separate chapel is known to have existed. In the lesser residences buildings were, in general, more loosely grouped than those of the palaces. Hall and principal chambers were almost invariably placed at firstor upper-floor level, Scottish custom in this respect being more akin to Continental than to English practice. Nowhere is there anything approaching the classic medieval English ground-floor hall with its uniform arrangement of service and chamber wings. In some residences the hall was fully integrated within the range or building of which it formed part, as was customary on the Continent, but relatively uncommon in England. Elsewhere, the great hall was designed as an independent unit in the English manner. In the smaller residences there was hardly space to provide the king with a separate private lodging, although nearly all had separate great halls. A number of the larger residences, however, seem to have incorporated separate private suites. A number of later Scottish royal lodgings took the form of a tower-house. At Holyrood the queen’s rooms

56

John G. Dunbar: Scottish royal residences of the later Middle Ages: some aspects of domestic planning

——— 1993. ‘Mota, aula et turris: the manor-houses of the Anglo-Scottish border’, in Meirion-Jones, G and Jones, M (eds), Manorial Domestic buildings in England and Northern France, Society of Antiquaries of London, Occasional Papers, 15, 22–48 Douglas-Irvine, H 1910. Royal Palaces of Scotland, London Dunbar, J G 1963. ‘The Palace of Holyroodhouse during the first half of the sixteenth century’, Archaeol J, cxx, 241–54 ——— 1984. ‘Some aspects of the planning of Scottish royal palaces in the sixteenth century’, Archit History, 27, 15–24 ——— 1991. ‘Some sixteenth-century parallels for the Palace of Falkland’, Rev Scottish Culture, 7, 3–8 ER 1878–1908. Stuart, J et al, The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Edinburgh Ewart, G 1994. ‘Dundonald castle — recent work’, Château Gaillard, xvi, 167–78 Fawcett R 1986. Edinburgh Castle. Official Guide ——— 1988. The Palace of Holyroodhouse. Official Guide ——— 1990a. ‘Stirling castle: the King’s Old Building and the late medieval royal planning’, Château Gaillard, xiv, 175–94 ——— 1990b. The Abbey and Palace of Dunfermline. Official Guide ——— 1994. Scottish Architecture from the Accession of the Stewarts to the Reformation 1371–1560, Edinburgh ——— 1995. Stirling Castle. London Gifford, J 1988. Fife, The Buildings of Scotland, London Hewison, J K 1893–5. The Isle of Bute in the Olden Time, Edinburgh and London Howard, D. 1995. Scottish Architecture: Reformation to Restoration 1560–1660, Edinburgh Leland, J 1770. De Rebus Britannicis collectanea . . ., London MacGibbon, D and Ross, T 1887–92. The Castellated and Domestic Architecture of Scotland, Edinburgh MacIvor, I 1993. Edinburgh Castle. London Meirion-Jones, G et al 1993. ‘The seigneurial domestic buildings of Brittany, 1000–1700’, in MeirionJones, G and Jones, M (eds), Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France. Society of Antiquaries of London, 158–91 Mesqui, J 1991–3. Châteaux et Enceintes de la France Médiévale, Paris Muray, A L 1975. ‘Crown lands in 1424–1542’, in McNeill, P and Nicholson, R (eds), An Historical Atlas of Scotland, Conference of Scottish Medievalists MW 1957–82. Paton, H M et al, Accounts of the Masters of Works for Building and Repairing Royal Palaces and Castles, Edinburgh Pringle, D 1987. Doune Castle. Official Guide ——— 1989. Linlithgow Palace. Official Guide

In den kleineren Residenzen waren die Gebäude generell eher locker angeordnet als in den Palästen. Halle und Hauptgemächer waren fast immer im ersten Stock oder den Obergeschossen untergebracht.Schottische Traditionen sind in dieser Hinsicht stärker der kontinentalen als der englischen Praxis verwandt. Nirgends existiert hier etwas, was der klassischen mittelalterlichen englischen Halle im Erdgeschoss mit ihrem einheitlichen Arrangement der Wirtschaftsund Wohnflügel nahekommt. In einigen Residenzen war die Halle völlig in den Gebäudekomplex als Teil des Ganzen integriert, was üblich auf dem Festland aber relativ ungewöhnlich in England war. Anderswo wurde die große Halle als unabhängiger Gebäudeteil nach englischer Art gestaltet. In den kleineren Residenzen war kaum Platz, dem König eine separate Privatwohnung einzurichten, obwohl nahezu alle eine eigene große Halle besaßen. Eine Anzahl der größeren Residenzen scheint jedoch separate Privatappartements eingeschlossen zu haben. Eine Reihe späterer schottischer Königswohnungen nehmen die Form eines Turmhauses an. In Holyrood befanden sich die Räume der Königin direkt über denen des Königs und es ist anzunehmen, dass die gleichen Arrangements bei anderen übereinander gelegenen Wohnungen Nachfolge fanden. Ein ähnliches System scheint sich in Frankreich durchgesetzt zu haben, wenn auch mit bedeutenden Ausnahmen, wohingegen in England während dieser kurzen Periode, in der übereinandergelegene Wohnungen Mode waren, die Gemächer des Königs gewöhnlich in dem oberen der zwei Geschosse angenommen werden. In der Bretagne sind es die Appartements der Ehefrau, die generell über denen des Gemahls untergebracht sind und einige besitzen eine zweite Privattreppe zwischen den beiden Stockwerken. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Mr A Maxwell-Irving and Mr G P Stell for information and advice and to Ms Jane Siddall for the drawings. Bibliography Baillie, H M 1967. ‘Etiquette and the planning of the State Apartments in Baroque palaces’, Archaeologia, ci, 169–99 Bateson, M 1904. The Scottish King’s Household and other Fragments. Miscellany of the Scottish History Society, ii, Edinburgh Campbell, I 1995. ‘Linlithgow’s “Princely Palace” and its influence in Europe’, Architectural Heritage, v, (Journal of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland), 1–20 Dixon, P W 1992. ‘From hall to tower: the change in seigneurial houses on the Anglo-Scottish Border after c 1250’, in Coss, P R, and Lloyd, S D (ed) Thirteenth Century England, iv, 85-107

57

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

——— 1995. Rothesay Castle and St Mary’s Church. Official Guide Puttfarken, T et al 1989. Falkland, Palace and Royal Burgh. Official Guide RCAHM Scotland 1929. An Inventory of Mid and West Lothian, Edinburgh ——— 1933. An Inventory of Fife, Kinross and Clackmannan, Edinburgh ——— 1951. An Inventory of the City of Edinburgh, Edinburgh ——— 1957. An Inventory of Selkirkshire, Edinburgh ——— 1966. An Inventory of Stirlingshire, Edinburgh Simpson, A T and Stevenson, S 1982. Historic Perth : the archaeological implications of development, Scottish Burgh Survey, Glasgow, University of Glasgow, Department of Archaeology Simpson, W D 1923. ‘The royal castle of Kindrochit in Mar’, Proc Soc Ant Scot, lvii, 1922–3, 75–97 ——— 1928. ‘The excavation of Kindrochit Castle, Aberdeenshire’, Antiq J, viii, 69–75 ——— 1938. Ravenscraig Castle, Aberdeen ——— 1939. ‘The architectural history of Rothesay Castle’, Trans Glasgow Archaeol Soc, ix, 152–83 ——— 1949. The Earldom of Mar, Aberdeen ——— 1950. ‘Dundonald Castle’, Ayrshire Archaeol and Nat Hist Coll, Second Series, i, 1947–9, 42–51 Slezer, J 1693 and later editions. Theatrum Scotiae Stell, G 1981. ‘Late medieval defences in Scotland’, in Caldwell, D H (ed), Scottish Weapons and Fortifications, Edinburgh, 21–54 TA 1877–1913. Scotland – Court of the Exchequer. Dickson, T and Paul, J Balfour, Compota Thesaurariorum Regum Scotorum. Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, 11 vols, Edinburgh Tabraham, C and Stewart, F 1994. Urquhart Castle. Official Guide Thomas, A 1995. ‘Tailors, trumpeters and turnspits; class and hierarchy in the Household of King James V, 1528–1542’ (unpublished paper) Thompson, M 1995. The Medieval Hall: The Basis of Medieval Domestic Life, 600–1600 AD, Aldershot Thurley, S 1993. The Royal Palaces of Tudor England. New Haven and London

58

John G. Dunbar: Scottish royal residences of the later Middle Ages: some aspects of domestic planning

Figure 1 Sketch-plans of Scottish royal castles (firstfloor level). 1 Kindrochit Castle, Aberdeenshire; 2 Dundonald Castle, Ayrshire; 3 Newark Castle, Selkirkshire; 4 Rothesay Castle, Bute; 5 Ravenscraig Castle, Fife

59

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 2 Sketch-plans of Scottish royal palaces (first-floor level). 1 Holyroodhouse (James IV) A1, A2 Hall; B1, B2 Great Chamber; C1, C2 Chamber: 2 Holyroodhouse (James V) A Outer Chamber; B Mid Chamber; C Inner Chamber or Wardrobe; D North Chamber; E Council Chamber; F King’s Outer Chamber; G King’s Inner Chamber: 3 Dunfermline Palace, Fife

60

John G. Dunbar: Scottish royal residences of the later Middle Ages: some aspects of domestic planning

Figure 3 Sketch-plans of Scottish royal castles and palaces (first-floor level). 1 Edinburgh Castle A Hall, B Great Chamber; C Closet: 2 Doune Castle, Perthshire A1, A2 Hall; B1, B2 Chamber: 3 Falkland Palace, Fife (James V) A Hall?; B Outer Chamber?; C Chamber?; D Lords’ Hall?; E Keeper’s Outer Chamber; F Keeper’s Inner Chamber: 4 Linlithgow Palace, Lothian (James IV) A Hall; B Great Chamber; C Chamber; D Chamber Tower; E Lords’ Hall?; F Vestry?; G Chamber: 5 Stirling Castle (James IV) A Hall; B Great Chamber; C Chamber: (James V) A1, A2 Hall; B1, B2 Outer Chamber; C1, C2 Chamber

61

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

62

Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle par

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp

paysage urbain.4 En somme, demeure d’une partie des élites,5 elle répond à des critères sociaux et à des normes architecturales qui expriment une singularité, perceptible par les contemporains.

Si l’étude des résidences seigneuriales rurales et des maisons urbaines connaît depuis peu un développement certain en France, il est une catégorie d’édifices quelque peu négligée: les résidences patriciennes urbaines, de la grande maison au palais, n’ont guère mobilisé l’attention.1 Cette courte contribution souhaite présenter les premiers éléments d’une synthèse sur ce type d’habitat dans le SudOuest de la France. Elle sera centrée sur le Quercy et le Périgord,2 provinces particulièrement favorisées par le nombre et la qualité des édifices conservés, mais des comparaisons avec les demeures des terroirs voisins seront également proposées. Après avoir énoncé à grands traits les caractères qui définissent le programme de la demeure patricienne urbaine, nous procéderons à une analyse de ses composantes, puis de sa place dans l’univers urbain et dans la société des XIIe–XIVe siècles. Un court inventaire achèvera l’étude.3

DES RÉSIDENCES Ces demeures sont avant tout des logis. La vocation première, exclusive, ou à tout le moins primordiale, des corps de bâtiment qui les composent, est résidentielle: ils accueillent la famille et l’entourage du propriétaire. Les parties résidentielles, espaces de la vie privée et de la vie sociale, occupent la totalité des étages. Les rez-de-chaussée sont destinés aux fonctions ancillaires et subalternes du domestique (entrepôts et celliers, accueil des montures et des animaux de bât, etc), quand ils n’abritent pas, par exception, des activités économiques. L’organisation des contacts avec la voie publique dénote à la fois une imbrication avec le tissu urbain environnant et une recherche de l’autonomie des accès au logis. Ces résidences patriciennes ne répondent pas au schéma d’implantation de l’Italie du nord et du centre qui agrège les résidences du lignage en les isolant le plus possible des espaces communs. Les demeures du SudOuest ne s’isolent pas autour de cours privées ou semipubliques, desservies par des impasses; certes, dans le noyau de certains castra, la densité de la texture du bâti rend plus confuses les relations entre la voirie et les habitations mais, dans la plupart des villes, celles-ci sont bâties en front de rue. Soulignons ce caractère, qui les différencie des demeures seigneuriales rurales: les édifices ici étudiés sont insérés dans le réseau de la voirie et ne sont pas isolés; ils répondent donc pleinement à un régime urbain. Tous affrontent les espaces publics, rues ou place. La plupart d’entre eux, à l’exception de ceux qui occupent complètement un îlot, sont contigus à d’autres maisons, de toutes catégories et conditions. En revanche, souvent les accès au logis ne sont pas de plain pied avec l’espace public, alors que ce cas de Figureure domine parmi les maisons polyvalentes à Cahors, Figeac ou Lauzerte. Quand les portes des demeures patriciennes donnent sur la rue, elles sont fréquemment placées à l’étage (Caussade; Flaugnac) (Figure 1); le plus souvent les portes donnent sur la cour, où est disposé le grand degré, escalier à une ou plusieurs volées, qui dessert l’étage noble (Martel, Cahors). Dans

LE PROGRAMME DE LA DEMEURE PATRICIENNE URBAINE Est-il légitime d’isoler au sein de l’habitat des villes médiévales une catégorie, qui en constituerait indéniablement le sommet et se distinguerait radicalement de la majorité des autres maisons? La réponse est affirmative, bien que certaines nuances doivent en préciser la nature. La demeure patricienne appartient au programme des édifices dont la vocation première est résidentielle. Par là, elle se différencie clairement de la maison polyvalente, où la fonction de production et d’échanges, désignée par l’importance des ouvroirs et/ou des échoppes, est fondamentale. Elle est aussi la demeure d’un puissant, noble de vieille souche et seigneur féodal, ou bien ministérial, officier seigneurial enrichi, ou encore bourgeois opulent, membre du patriciat: c’est donc le logis de l’élite économique et politique, qui tient le pays et constitue l’entourage des princes territoriaux. C’est enfin un édifice que sa situation topographique et sa morphologie, son ampleur, souvent sa silhouette et ses formes et, quoi qu’il en soit, sa qualité, distinguent dans le

1

2

3

Première vue synthétique in Garrigou Grandchamp 1994, p 31–35 et 46–51. Le Quercy s’étend sur le territoire du département du Lot et la moitié nord du département du Tarn-et-Garonne (région Midi-Pyrénées); le Périgord correspond au département de la Dordogne (région Aquitaine). Les départements localisant les sites sont précisés dans l’inventaire. Tous les plans ont été repris par l’auteur, à partir de fonds de plan dont l’origine est indiquée dans chaque légende.

4

5

63

Elles répondent notamment aux trois critères de l’hôtel noble défini par F. Hamon: la superficie, la configuration et la localisation; cf. Boudon et al, 1977, 190–1. Oustaux = pluriel d’ostal, terme de langue d’oc désignant l’hôtel. Nous avons volontairement exclu de cette étude les résidences canoniales ainsi que les demeures urbaines des princes territoriaux (c’est-à-dire, en Quercy, les palais épiscopaux).

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Plusieurs de ces demeures appartiennent à des nobles, seigneurs largement possessionnés, et porteront leur nom ou celui de leur lignage à travers les siècles. Ainsi en est-il de L’Icheyrie (Figure 4), demeure des Del Pech, famille-

pivot du castrum de Puy-l’Evêque aux XIVe et XVe siècles, de L’Hébrardie, bâtie par un Ebrard à Cajarc, ou du château de Balène à Figeac: les Balène, fort riches et détenteurs de nombreux châteaux, traitent avec le roi de France. C’est aussi le cas de La Raymondie, à Martel, bâtie par un membre de la famille de Turenne, ainsi que des tours de Cardaillac, de La Tour d’Arles à Caussade et des maisons de chevaliers du castrum de Flaugnac. Certaines sont les logis de ministériaux, comme la maison romane de Saint-Antonin, construite pour les Graulhet, qui étaient vraisemblablement les viguiers des vicomtes. D’autres enfin servent de somptueuses résidences aux grands bourgeois qui côtoient les Grands: le Quercy en est particulièrement bien pourvu, du fait des liens entretenus avec les papes d’Avignon. A cette catégorie appartiennent trois édifices: ce sont, à Cahors, le palais Duèze (construit par Pierre Duèze, frère du pape Jean XXII (1316–34), consul de Cahors et acquéreur de la vicomté de Caraman), et le palais de Via (construit par Pierre de Via, neveu du précédent et frère d’un cardinal; il est lui aussi consul et bientôt chevalier du roi); la borie de Savanac, à Lamagdeleine, est quant à elle bâtie pour la famille de Jean: ces richissimes bourgeois comptent également dans leurs rangs un cardinal. Dans les autres provinces du Sud-Ouest, quand les origines des constructeurs sont connues, elles montrent la même diversité. Ainsi en Périgord: à Périgueux des demeures de lignages chevaleresques sont conservées dans la Cité (hôtel d’Angoulême et château Barrière). Dans le fort du castrum de Belvès, plusieurs tours romanes marquaient l’emplacement des logis des co-seigneurs, délogés au milieu du XIIIe siècle par l’archevêque de Bordeaux. En Gascogne, à La Romieu, subsistent les vestiges de la grande résidence construite par un prince de l’Eglise: la demeure du cardinal Arnaud d’Aux est à l’image des livrées d’Avignon et de Villeneuve. Non loin, à Lectoure, la maison-forte d’Albinhac serait un logis chevaleresque. Dans la rue du Taur, à Toulouse, se dressent encore la tour d’angle et les deux ailes de la demeure de Pierre Maurand, consul, qui Figureure au premier plan de la bourgeoisie. D’ailleurs, ce patriciat méridional, proche des chevaliers par ses goûts et par son style de vie, parvenait fréquemment, grâce aux alliances contractées et aux services rendus, à s’introduire dans la noblesse qu’il côtoyait quotidiennement. A cet égard, la possession d’armoiries n’est pas un titre suffisant pour faire valoir des titres de noblesse, et la présence d’écus ne permet pas, à elle seule, de décider si la maison fut construite par un noble ou un grand bourgeois. C’est ainsi que les armes sculptées sur la maison de Guitard, à Rodez, trahissent un logis patricien édifié par une famille bourgeoise ayant accédé à la noblesse.9

6

SITUATION TOPOGRAPHIQUE

nombre d’autres oustaux, les rez-de-chaussée sont aveugles, excepté une porte, tandis que l’unique étage se pare de nombreuses fenêtres.6 Une comparaison avec les maisons polyvalentes du Quercy, illustre ces différences.7 Les maisons gothiques de Lauzerte sont exiguës: composées d’un seul corps de bâtiment qui affronte la rue, elles ouvrent sur elle leur porte de plain pied; de ce fait, la desserte du logis, qui occupe l’étage, n’est guère isolée de la rue. La maison du bourreau, sise rue de la Daurade à Cahors, est un vaste édifice, typique des grandes maisons qui se situent aux franges de la demeure patricienne. Plusieurs corps de logis entourent une cour où est installé l’escalier, loin de la rue. En revanche, la totalité du rez-dechaussée entresolé est affecté aux activités de production et d’échanges et ouvre largement sur la rue par deux arcades. Le programme est encore très marqué par le partage entre les fonctions domestiques et économiques. Ces deux exemples montrent la gamme de types exprimant la gradation des programmes, de l’humble maison polyvalente à l’édifice uniquement résidentiel, qui passe pour égaler les palais. De fait, si l’absence d’échoppes est un trait marquant du programme, commun à l’immense majorité de ces résidences, il existe néanmoins quelques grandes demeures qui ne sont pas seulement des logis et abritent également des échoppes et des ouvroirs. C’est le cas, dès le milieu du XIIe siècle, de la maison romane de SaintAntonin (Figure 2): certes, les actes qui font état de boutiques, chacune logée dans une des arcades du rez-dechaussée, ne datent que de 1270, mais la morphologie du bâtiment s’accorde trop avec ce programme partagé pour douter que la situation ait été identique un siècle auparavant. La Raymondie, à Martel, donne un exemple du début du XIVe siècle (Figure 3): la totalité du rez-dechaussée de la façade sud, et sans doute aussi de celui de la façade ouest, était ajourée par une file ininterrompue d’arcades protégées par des auvents, assurément destinées à accueillir des échoppes.8 En dépit de leur rang et de la vocation de résidence qu’ils donnent à leur demeure, les puissants ne résistent donc pas toujours à l’attrait des revenus que procure l’aménagement de locaux commerciaux dans leurs oustaux. L’emplacement des édifices, au coeur des espaces où la vie économique est la plus intense, y est pour beaucoup. Il faudra revenir sur ce déterminant du programme, lors de l’examen de l’implantation des maisons patriciennes. DEMEURES DES ÉLITES LAÏQUES

7

8

Laborie 1990, 87–9: exemples des oustaux de Bergerac (ostal de Malbec) et de Bordeaux. Garrigou Grandchamp 1994, 19 (maison de Lauzerte); 84–5: maison de Cahors. Saint-Antonin: Scellès 1989, 47. Martel: Napoléone 1989, 394–5 et Figures 5 et 6.

L’implantation des demeures patriciennes doit aussi être 9

64

Miquel 1981, t 1, 93.

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle desquelles se concentre l’activité commerciale,10 appartiennent à un univers étranger au fort des chevaliers. Les demeures de ceux-ci sont exemptes de toute fonction d’échanges. En revanche, pour les demeures patriciennes, nobles ou bourgeoises, établies au coeur de la ville, la prégnance des activités économiques est telle que l’inclusion de locaux commerciaux dans le programme résidentiel est un choix tentant. Outre les exemples déjà cités ci-dessus, il faut évoquer la façade de l’évêché de Cahors, rue C. Marot, tout entière percée d’une série d’arcades: nous les interprétons, non comme une galerie ou un promenoir, mais comme des boutiques; elles sont vouées au commerce plutôt qu’au seul délassement. Ces considérations sont sans doute également à l’origine des rez-de-chaussée ajourés d’arcades de la grande maison gothique de Salignac-Eyvigues et de l’hôtel de Comarque à Belvès, que l’on hésite à classer dans les maisons polyvalentes ou dans les demeures patriciennes.

examinée sous l’angle de leurs relations avec le reste de l’organisme urbain. Une diversité certaine marque le choix du quartier d’implantation, mais nous observons deux grands cas de Figureure. Le premier est illustré par l’existence de quartiers aristocratiques séparés du reste de l’agglomération, les forts, où se regroupent tous les habitats aristocratiques; c’est la situation de nombreux castra et bourgs castraux du Quercy (Belaye, Cardaillac, Flaugnac, Pestilhac et Puy l’Evêque), ou du Périgord (Belvès, Beynac, Biron, Excideuil, Comarque à Sireuil), mais aussi de noyaux urbains anciens, telle la Cité de Périgueux, où les demeures de chevaliers s’installent toutes sur le rempart antique. La répartition des demeures chevaleresques ne paraît obéir à aucune conFigureuration ordonnée, si ce n’est lorsqu’elles s’établissent contre le rempart, ou composent une partie de l’enceinte. Ailleurs, elles se dispersent dans le fort; il arrive qu’en soit exclu tout logis qui n’est pas noble, mais dans la Cité de Périgueux, ceux-ci voisinent avec des maisons d’ecclésiastiques voire de quelques commerçants et artisans. Dans le deuxième cas de Figureure, les autres résidences sont incluses dans l’agglomération, qui ne comprend pas de quartier noble séparé. Cet état de fait prévaut dans toutes les villes plus importantes. Pour autant, les situations ne manquent pas de variété: certaines demeures s’établissent au cœur de la ville, telles la maison romane de Saint-Antonin, La Raymondie à Martel, L’Hébrardie à Cajarc, ou la maison à tour et salle de Catus et la tour d’Arles à Caussade; d’autres occupent de grands espaces en marge du cœur urbain, comme les palais Duèze et de Via, à Cahors, le château de Balène à Figeac et la grande salle de Castelnau-Montratier. Ces dernières s’adossent volontiers à la muraille urbaine, quitte à disposer d’une poterne propre pour gagner l’extérieur (palais Duèze). Cette variété de situations est également illustrée dans les autres provinces: la demeure de Pierre Maurand à Toulouse, la tour d’Andiran à Condom, la maison-forte d’Albinhac à Lectoure, la maison des Prêtres à Sainte-Foyla-Grande, la maison de Guitard à Rodez, le palais de la Place des Conques à Villeneuve-d’Aveyron, ou l’Abescat à Tournon d’Agenais (Figure 5), sont tous situés au centre de l’agglomération. Pour autant, alors que beaucoup de ces édifices choisissent une situation en angle de rue, jugée prestigieuse, certains préfèrent s’établir en retrait de la rue, telles la maison-forte d’Albinhac et la maison des Prêtres. Il est possible que certaines demeures aient préexisté à l’expansion urbaine, et qu’elle doivent à leur antériorité une implantation particulière. J. Lartigaut a émis l’hypothèse que La Raymondie serait bâtie sur l’emplacement du premier château vicomtal, ce qui expliquerait son affranchissement de toute contiguïté (Figure 6). Le lieu d’implantation des demeures n’est pas neutre pour leur programme. Le regroupement dans un réduit aristocratique va de pair avec un éloignement des centres de la vie économique: les rues fortes, le long

MORPHOLOGIE DES DEMEURES PATRICIENNES La morphologie des demeures patriciennes ne saurait à elle seule les caractériser, car, en dépit de certaines spécificités, elle présente bien des points communs avec celle des autres édifices domestiques. Néanmoins, l’étude de leurs plans de masses et de certaines de leurs composantes précise les contours de cette architecture résidentielle. PLANS DE MASSES Les plans de masses des demeures patriciennes peuvent être regroupés en quatre grands types. La Maison-Tour La maison-tour est le plus exigu (Figure 7). Il regroupe des bâtiments en forme de tour, à plusieurs étages, mais qui n’en restent pas moins généralement habitables: leurs dimensions intérieures et leurs équipements sont en effet adaptés à la vie domestique. Le type est illustré en Quercy par les tours d’Albas, de Pestilhac et de Caussade, ainsi que par celles de Cordes, Condom, Agen, Belvès, Beynac (Figure 8), Cause-de-Clérans et Sainte-Foy-la-Grande dans les autres provinces.11 La maison-tour se distingue nettement de certaines salles de plan compact par sa hauteur.12 Ces bâtiments ne sauraient donc être confondus avec les nombreuses tours hautes et étroites, souvent seuls vestiges de repaires nobles ruraux, qui sont impropres à l’habitation. De même, les tours de Cardaillac ne répondent qu’imparfaitement à cette typologie, car elles sont moins habitables et pourraient être en relation avec un logis, proche mais indépendant de la tour (Figure 9). Ce 10

11

12

65

Dans les provinces du Sud-Ouest, l’activité commerciale s’exerce dans les rez-de-chaussée ajourés d’arcades et dans les marchés, souvent établis sur des places publiques comportant des halles. Voir in Garrigou Grandchamp 1995, 690, un point sur les tours à Périgueux et en Périgord. Hauteurs minimales conservées, hors oeuvre: Caussade: 15m; Condom: 20m; Sainte-Foy: plus de 30m.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

plan de masses, à tour et salle séparée, qui serait un parti fondamental pour l’habitat seigneurial, est actuellement étudié par G. Séraphin. Un doute subsiste quant à l’isolement complet des maisons-tours: formaient-elles à elles seules le logis ou étaient-elles entourées de dépendances? Nous estimons que beaucoup de demeures étaient constituées par une tour seule, mais des monographies détaillées seront nécessaires pour élucider toutes les questions pendantes.13 Notons qu’elles sont aussi bien situées en front de rue, à Beynac, Albas, Caussade et Condom, qu’en coeur d’îlot, à Cahors et Sainte-Foy.

Les deux autres types de plans de masses sont plus caractéristiques des demeures patriciennes: ce sont la demeure à tour et salle et la demeure en forme de palais, à plusieurs ailes autour d’une cour. La Maison à Tour et Salle La maison à tour et salle comporte un logis de un ou deux étages, accolé d’une tour encore plus haute (Figure 12). Elle s’élève en général en front de rue et ne dédaigne pas les angles. La tour est le plus souvent de dimensions réduites; offrant peu d’espace, elle ne joue dans ce cas qu’un rôle marginal dans le programme domestique. Il arrive cependant qu’elle soit aussi développée que le logis (Catus). Elle est très bien représentée dans le Sud-Ouest: en Quercy on la trouve à Catus et à Pestilhac, en Gascogne à Lectoure (maison-forte d’Albinhac), en Agenais à Tournon (L’Abescat), en Périgord dans la Cité de Périgueux (hôtel d’Angoulême et Château Barrière), et en Rouergue à Rodez (maison de Guitard). A ce type répondaient les grands oustaux des patriciens bordelais, tels ceux du Puy-Paulin et du Soler, souvent adossés au rempart gallo-romain. Ce type de demeure suit un parti adopté par nombre de résidences seigneuriales rurales: très apprécié en Gascogne, il existe également en Quercy aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Montdoumerc).15 Il existe aussi quelques demeures à tour et salle dont le rez-de-chaussée est complètement ajouré d’arcades: elles ne répondent donc pas dans toute sa pureté au programme: ainsi de la maison romane de Saint-Antonin et de l’hôtel de Livernon à Figeac.16

La Maison-Bloc ou Salle La maison-bloc ou salle est un grand bâtiment rectangulaire, à un ou deux étages. Ce type est représenté en Quercy par L’Icheyrie (dans le fort de Puy-l’Evêque), et par la grande salle de Castelnau-Montratier, sise à l’écart de la grande place (Figure 10). Toutes deux bénéficient d’une cour, latérale (Castelnau-Montratier) ou arrière (Puyl’Evêque), qui ne les sépare pas de l’espace public. Les rez-de-chaussée ne sont guère percés et la porte d’entrée, toujours située sur une grande façade, ouvre sur la cour dans le premier cas et sur la rue dans le second. En Périgord, la demeure romane de Bigaroque et le bâtiment dit Le Présidial à Beynac appartiennent à cette catégorie. La première a également une cour latérale, mais la porte d’entrée est située à l’étage et le rez-de-chaussée paraît aveugle. Le second, au pied du château et à l’écart de la rue principale, ouvre une porte à l’arrière, dans un murbouclier, et une autre à l’étage, sur un long côté. En Albigeois, à Burlats, le logis roman dit pavillon d’Adélaïde répond à ce programme (Figure 11). La présence d’une rangée d’arcades en rez-dechaussée de leur façade sur rue fait hésiter à classer dans ce type la grande maison gothique de Salignac-Eyvigues et l’hôtel de Comarque à Belvès. Si les commanditaires et habitants de ces deux édifices étaient connus et s’il s’avérait qu’ils fussent nobles, ou au rang des premiers bourgeois, il est néanmoins certain qu’il serait difficile de ne pas les considérer comme des représentants d’une catégorie intermédiaire entre les grandes maisons polyvalentes et les résidences pures. De fait, les deux premiers types de la maison-tour et de la maison-bloc sont très proches des maisons polyvalentes de mêmes ampleur, opulence et plan de masses. Ainsi, à Caussade, la maison de la Taverne est-elle une maison polyvalente en forme de tour dont la morphologie se distingue principalement de la tour d’Arles par la présence d’arcades au rez-de-chaussée et l’absence de porte ouvrant aux étages.14 De même, à Figeac et Cahors, nombreuses sont les très grandes maisons-blocs, mais elles sont en général situées sur les rues fortes et ajourées d’arcades.

La Demeure à Plusieurs Ailes autour d’une Cour La demeure à plusieurs ailes autour d’une cour est un type également très bien représenté, auquel répondent des édifices dont certains ont l’ampleur de vrais palais.17 Les uns dessinent un quadrilatère complet, avec une cour intérieure; les logis des autres, assemblés en L ou en U, ne bordent la cour que sur deux ou trois de ses côtés. Dans la catégorie des habitations formant un L, les plans de masses montrent deux schémas, selon que les deux ailes de logis s’articulent ou non sur une tour d’angle. Le parti à tour d’angle est illustré par la maison de Pierre Maurand, à Toulouse, demeure romane située à un carrefour que domine la tour; les deux ailes enfermaient une cour, peut-être délimitée sur les deux autres côtés par des annexes qui ont disparu. En revanche, à Cajarc, la tour de L’Hébrardie n’est pas située à un angle, mais à l’extrémité d’un des corps de logis; la cour ne paraît pas avoir été fermée par des bâtiments, mais est surélevée, en terrasse. 15

Séraphin 1999b. Hôtel de Livernon: Garrigou Grandchamp 1994, 57, d’après G Séraphin. 17 L’emploi du terme ‘palais’ pour les grandes demeures ne fait évidemment pas référence au lieu d’exercice d’un pouvoir public. Il traduit l’analogie avec les vastes résidences des magnats que suggèrent leur ampleur et leur structuration; une pareille ressemblance a fait qualifier de palais les demeures cardinalices en Avignon. 16

13

14

A Agen, les deux situations paraissent coexister: des fouilles ont révélé un ostal composé d’une tour, mais un autre édifice, la tour du Chapelet, paraît bien exigu pour avoir constitué à lui seul une résidence. A Gaillac, la tour Palmata semble isolée, mais des indices suggèrent que deux corps de logis se raccordaient à elle. Viollet-le-Duc 1863, t 6, 235. Pousthomis 1995, 37–8 et Figure 92–3.

66

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle Le Quercy est particulièrement riche en demeures de la deuxième catégorie, les résidences dessinant un quadrilatère complet. A Cahors, ce sont les palais Duèze (Figure 13) et de Via, à Martel La Raymondie et à Figeac le château de Balène; en Rouergue a été répertorié le palais de la Place des Conques, à Villeneuve-d’Aveyron. Ce plan de masses a été également adopté dans certaines résidences suburbaines de la vallée du Lot (borie de Savanac, à Lamagdeleine), et dans des résidences rurales épiscopales (château des évêques de Périgueux à Plazac). Il est plus rare dans le reste du Sud-Ouest: l’hôtel noble de l’îlot Fonbalquine à Bergerac (restitué par des fouilles), la demeure du cardinal Arnaud d’Aux à La Romieu ou le grand château-palais des Duèze à Saint-Félix-Lauragais en sont néanmoins de bons exemples; le plan restitué des deux premiers forme un U, tandis que le troisième a une cour centrale. Les cours de ces demeures sont vastes, d’un peu plus de 100m2 à près de 300m2; seul le palais de Via dispose de deux cours (Figure 14). Toutes ces résidences comportent une tour, le plus souvent placée à un angle, mais qui se dresse parfois au coeur de l’emprise (palais de Via et hôtel de l’îlot Fonbalquine), ou sur un des côtés (La Raymondie); aucune explication n’est satisfaisante pour expliquer cette diversité d’implantation. L’ampleur de ces édifices est telle qu’ils en arrivent parfois à occuper un îlot complet, comme à Figeac, Martel et La Romieu, et se trouvent dégagés de toute contiguïté. Les deux palais de Cahors, celui de Villeneuve-d’Aveyron, ainsi que L’Hébrardie à Cajarc, sont également presque complètement libres et ne tiennent aux bâtiments voisins que par un de leurs côtés.

demeure, ses dimensions dans oeuvre sont importantes: 42m2 à Condom, 66m2 à Caussade, 70m2 à Agen et 100m2 à Sainte-Foy. Elles restent du même ordre dans certaines maisons, telle celle de Pierre Maurand à Toulouse (48m2), ou celle de Catus et Rodez, voire dans certains palais (45m2 au palais Duèze, 77m2 au palais de Via (Figure 15), 55m2 à La Raymondie). Le plus souvent, cependant, elle est svelte, comme à Tournon d’Agenais, et ne renferme qu’une annexe exiguë (19m2 au château de Balène, 16m2 à Saint-Antonin), quand ce n’est pas un simple belvédère (7m2 à La Romieu); la surface est tout aussi réduite dans les tours-beffrois, qui ne sont pas destinées à l’habitation (24m2 dans les tours de l’Horloge et de Sagnes, à Cardaillac). Quel que soit l’emplacement de la tour, c’est sa visibilité qui importe: elle s’impose par sa hauteur, voire par sa masse; elle se voit de loin et de près elle impressionne. Bien qu’elle soit quelquefois merlonnée (palais Duèze; l’Ancient Couvent à Beynac), sa fonction n’est en rien défensive, mais ostentatoire. Aussi abrite-telle parfois l’entrée (La Raymondie), dont certaine parée d’un somptueux portail (château de Balène) (Figure 16). Les tours sont des constructions de prestige, percées de nombreuses fenêtres, et qui renferment en général les seules pièces voûtées (Martel, Cahors, Toulouse); seul le château de Balène comprend de nombreux espaces voûtés hors de la tour. La Grande Salle La grande salle n’est pas aisée à identifier dans les maisons-tours. Si l’on peut admettre qu’à la pièce la plus décorée corresponde probablement un espace ouvert à la vie sociale, il est curieux de la voir située au niveau le plus élevé, comme à Caussade, ce qui oblige à passer par la chambre pour s’y rendre. Dans les trois autres types de demeures, l’emplacement de la grande salle est mis en valeur: située au premier étage, elle donne généralement sur la rue principale et se distingue par un traitement particulièrement soigné de sa façade, qu’illustrent les fenêtres de La Raymondie, celles du château de Balène ou les fenêtres et l’oculus de la borie de Savanac. La demeure patricienne n’est pas refermée sur elle-même et la façade sur rue participe consciemment à l’ordonnance du paysage urbain environnant. La grande salle est magnifiée par son accès sur la cour: c’est elle que desservent le grand degré et les galeries, et il arrive que la porte qui y mène soit particulièrement décorée (château de Balène).19 Elle se signale aussi par son décor intérieur, la taille des cheminées (plus de 3m au palais Duèze) et par ses dimensions: encore modestes dans les demeures à tour et salle (49m2 à Saint-Antonin et 65m2 à Pestilhac), elle est fort grande dans les résidences à cour intérieure (100 m2 à 200m2) et gigantesque dans le palais Duèze (275m2).

LES COMPOSANTES DES DEMEURES PATRICIENNES Trop peu de monographies détaillées sont encore disponibles pour permettre de décrire en toute assurance les constantes de chaque type de demeure, les caractères de leurs principales composantes et leur évolution. Quelques grandes lignes se dégagent cependant d’ores et déjà. La Tour La tour était une élément prégnant de l’habitat médiéval, bien plus présent dans les villes françaises qu’il n’est couramment admis. Le Plan géométral de Rodez (1496) montre distinctement en vue cavalière nombre de tours domestiques, isolées ou accolées à des logis.18 De fait, hormis le groupe des maisons-blocs, toutes les demeures étudiées adoptent la forme de la tour ou en comportent une adossée à un logis. Cette fréquence de la tour dans l’habitat domestique patricien est un trait fort des terres méridionales; hors de l’Empire, les demeures septentrionales de même rang semblent avoir comporté moins de tours et s’être contenté souvent de tourelles. Lorsque la tour constitue en elle-même la

19 18

Plan au 1/1550e de Rodez en 1496, A D de l’Aveyron; publié in Histoire de la France urbaine, ed G Duby et A Wallon 1980, t 2, 16. Pour Rodez, voir aussi Miquel 1981, I, 93.

67

Escalier conservé au château de Balène et à La Romieu; restituable dans la cour au palais Duèze et à La Raymondie, dans la borie de Savanac et à Saint-Antonin. Galeries conservées à La Raymondie et restituables au château de Balène.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Les Logis

frappé par la profusion de demeures édifiées à la fin du XIIIe siècle et au cours de la première moitié du XIVe siècle. Les études ultérieures devront s’attacher à mieux cerner les conditions du phénomène: l’abondance est-elle une illusion de perspective, due à la meilleure conservation d’édifices mieux construits, ou le fruit d’un arrière-plan socio-économique favorisant une réelle affirmation des patriciens au terme de la grande expansion urbaine? Ces grandes demeures donnent dans les terres du sud une précoce illustration du style rayonnant, avec des tendances déjà proches du flamboyant, qui traduit une sorte d’accélération de la maturation du style gothique: pour s’être implanté tardivement au cours du dernier tiers du XIIIe siècle, il parcourt avec vélocité les étapes qui le mènent à l’esthétique flamboyante, et les fenêtres et les portails des palais Duèze et de Via, du château de Balène et de La Raymondie sont d’une troublante modernité en ces premières décennies du XIVe siècle (Figure 18).

Dans les grandes demeures les logis prennent place dans des ailes qui offrent des surfaces considérables.20 Ils occupent les étages, tandis que les rez-de-chaussée abritent écuries, magasins et autres installations domestiques (Figure 17). La compréhension de la distribution de ces intérieurs demanderait des études du même ordre que celles qui ont récemment mis en évidence la structuration des résidences royales et princières, en identifiant les sphères de la vie publique, de la vie sociale et de la vie privée. Particularité de ces résidences, la chapelle en est quasiment absente (sauf à Martel), alors qu’elle Figureure au programme des châteaux-palais (Plazac, Saint-FélixLauragais) et des grands hôtels parisiens des XIVe et XVe siècles. PLACE DES DEMEURES PATRICIENNES DANS LA VILLE ET LA SOCIÉTÉ

LES PATRICIENS DANS LA VILLE CHRONOLOGIE Il est admis que la présence continue des nobles dans la ville est un trait marquant des cultures méridionales. L’observation des résidences urbaines du Sud-Ouest confirme l’observation, réitérée d’après l’étude des sources, par Miquel: ‘Tous les nobles paraissent avoir possédé une maison dans le village ou la ville la plus proche’.22 Cet état de fait donne une consistance d’autant plus forte au concept d’habitat spécifique que le même auteur ajoute, quelques lignes plus loin: ‘Les maisons nobles dans les villes se transmettent le plus souvent entre nobles’. Entre de multiples exemples, choisissons celui que donne Lartigaut à Bélaye, castrum où les milites castri possèdent tous des maisons.23 Sans forcer le trait et imaginer des barrières étanches entre tous les programmes et les types qui leur donnent forme, il apparaît que l’importance et la permanence de cet élément noble ont fortement imprégné les mentalités et les comportements des bourgeois les plus riches, même dans les villes où les nobles ne sont pas en situation dominante. La perméabilité sociale est grande et nombre de bourgeois deviennent seigneurs fonciers. Rien de surprenant si les chemins de l’affirmation sociale passent par une recherche d’ostentation exprimée dans l’architecture. C’est elle qui explique la fortune de la tour, seule ou incluse dans les logis. Pour mieux cerner le processus d’élaboration de l’architecture civile urbaine des villes du Sud-Ouest, il faudra essayer, à l’avenir, de distinguer ce qui revient à cette prégnance de l’univers chevaleresque et ce qui relève de l’univers bourgeois, au sens commun, et aussi faire la part de la rhétorique aristocratique et des fonctions économiques. Sans doute apparaîtront mieux les différences entre les logis patriciens, imprégnés des valeurs sociales et culturelles composites du milieu urbain, et les

La question des origines, de la formation des types, et donc des éventuels modèles, nous échappe encore. En revanche, dès le XIIe siècle, voire le courant du XIe siècle, certains plans de masses sont attestés, prouvant que les programmes sont déjà constitués. Les composantes majeures en sont dès lors la tour et/ou la salle à étage. Ainsi de la tour (Agen, tour-ostal; Pestilhac, bâtiment C), qui apparaît même probablement dès le XIe siècle, et de la salle, bien représentée dans l’architecture romane du XIIe siècle et du début du XIIIe siècle (Bigaroque; Burlats; Toulouse).21 Les demeures romanes à tour et salle sont présentes à Périgueux, dans la Cité (hôtel d’Angoulême et château Barrière), à Saint-Antonin et à Pestilhac: dans ce castrum le programme y apparaît sous deux formes, soit réalisé d’emblée (bâtiment B), soit en deux temps, une salle venant s’accoler à une tour (bâtiment A). Dans l’état des recherches, il est impossible de dire si l’un des types est antérieur à l’autre. Nous avons plutôt l’impression que la tour, la salle, et la tour et salle sont des programmes contemporains. La résidence à plusieurs ailes autour d’une cour existe au XIIe siècle à Toulouse (maison de Pierre Maurand) et au XIIIe siècle à Plazac (château-palais des évêques de Périgueux). Cependant, dans ces deux demeures, la cour n’est pas complètement entourée de logis; le type complet n’est identifié qu’au début du XIVe siècle, à Cahors, Figeac et Martel, du moins parmi les édifices repérés L’origine de ces divers types de résidences est obscure, la morphologie des logis urbains des magnats de l’An Mil, et a fortiori des générations précédentes, nous étant à ce jour inconnue. On ne peut, en revanche, qu’être 20

21

Chaque niveau offre 770m2 au palais Duèze; 660m2 à La Raymondie; 577m2 au palais de Via; 440m2 au château de Balène; 320m2 à la borie de Savanac; 225m2 à L’Hébrardie. Grand logis roman qui s’élevait autrefois rue du Château: Napoléone 1988, 132–7.

22

23

68

Miquel 1981, 92: très nombreuses citations concernant le Rouergue; les nombreux partages, principalement successoraux, aboutissent à des enchevêtrements de co-propriétés. Lartigaut 1979, 232.

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle Initial results lead us to think that these types are present from the twelfth century (even if no palace of that period is well-known), but also that the tower-houses and the halls, even the houses of hall and tower, existed from the eleventh century. This initial study establishes the importance of patrician constructions in the urban setting. It is now necessary to bring precision to the shape of things through monographs of the buildings, and better to define the relations which exist between the architectural typology and the composition of society.

habitats chevaleresques des castra. C’est ici poser deux questions. D’abord l’influence d’une différenciation sociale sur la typologie architecturale: les mentalités, intérêts et modes de vie, partiellement différents, des citadins de la classe dominante et des chevaliers des forts castraux se traduisent-ils dans les formes de leurs demeures? Ensuite, la diversité des faciès des agglomérations influe-t-elle sur l’habitat? Villes anciennes et développées, bastides et castra n’ont pas les mêmes fonctions économiques et politiques: quelles influences, croisant celles des disparités sociales, exercent ces données sur l’habitat? Un exemple de programme encore obscur illustrera ces problématiques. Comment faut-il analyser les demeures dont les façades mitoyennes composent l’enceinte des châteaux de Berbiguières et Excideuil (Dordogne)? A l’instar des logis chevaleresques de Biron et Salignac (Dordogne) ou de l’Isle-Bouzon (Gers), elles sont ouvertes vers l’extérieur, et non vers la basse-cour du château: furent-elles édifiées par des co-seigneurs, des milites castri, ou furent-elles également les maisons des plus opulents parmi les habitants des castra, en quelque sorte des burgenses castri? La multiplication des monographies est la condition première de l’élucidation de ces questions: souhaitons que les historiens et les archéologues y collaborent d’un même élan.

RESUMÉ Les résidences patriciennes urbaines ont été encore peu étudiées en France. Grandes demeures des puissants, nobles ou agents du pouvoir, mais aussi grands bourgeois, elles sont pourtant conservées en grand nombre dans toutes les provinces du Sud-Ouest de la France, en particulier en Périgord et dans le Quercy. Elles se distinguent des maisons urbaines les plus courantes, maisons polyvalentes servant de logis et de lieu de travail, par leur ampleur, par la qualité de leur construction et par la prédominance, parfois exclusive, de la fonction résidentielle. En effet, si certaines demeures situées sur des rues très commerçantes comportent des boutiques aménagées dans leurs rez-dechaussée, la plupart des demeures patriciennes sont dépourvues de lieux de commerce et de production artisanale. Ces édifices sont soit regroupés dans des quartiers spécifiques, parfois appelés forts (particulièrement dans les castra, agglomérations où la présence nobiliaire est forte et qui sont le siège de pouvoirs seigneuriaux), soit répartis dans la ville, au milieu des maisons plus modestes: c’est le cas en général dans les villes importantes. Les principaux types de logis adoptés par les patriciens sont la maison-tour (tour isolée, à plusieurs étages, habitable), la salle (grand bâtiment de plan rectangulaire, plus long que haut), la demeure à tour et salle (composée d’une salle accolée à une tour) et enfin la demeure en forme de palais (à plusieurs ailes entourant une cour centrale, flanquée d’une tour). Les composantes de la demeure patricienne sont la tour, présente dans le plus grand nombre (sauf celles qui se limitent à une salle), la grande salle (toujours à l’étage et souvent desservie par un escalier extérieur) et les logis, eux aussi à l’étage; la chapelle est rare. Les premières données laissent penser que ces types sont constitués dès le XIIe siècle (même si aucun palais de cette époque n’est bien connu), mais aussi que les maisons-tours et les salles, voir les maisons à tour et salle, existent dès le XIe siècle. Cette première étude prouve l’importance des constructions patriciennes dans le milieu urbain; il convient d’en préciser maintenant les contours morphologiques, par des monographies d’édifices, et de mieux définir les relations qui existent entre la typologie architecturale et la composition de la société.

ABSTRACT Patrician town houses are still little studied in France. The grand residences of the powerful, be they noble or agents of power, and also of the higher bourgoisie, are preserved in great numbers in all the provinces of south-west France, but in particular in the Périgord and the Quercy. They are to be distinguished from the more ordinary town houses – multi-function houses serving both for living and as a work-place – by their size, by the quality of their construction and by the predominance, sometimes exclusive, of the residential function. In effect, if certain houses situated on highly commercialized streets include shops incorporated on their ground-floors, most of the patrician residences are characterized by an absence of commercial premises and workshops. These structures are either grouped in specific sectors (sometimes called forts, particularly in the castra, urban agglomerations in which noble presence is strong and which are the seat of seigneurial power), or dispersed in the town, amidst more modest houses. The latter is generally the case in larger towns. The principal types of logis adopted by patricians are the tower-house (a habitable free-standing tower of several storeys), the hall (a large building of rectangular plan, longer than high), the hall and tower (consisting of a hall adjoining a tower), and finally the residence in the form of a palace (several wings around a central courtyard, flanked by a tower). The essentials of the patrician residence are the tower, present in the largest number (except for those confined just to a hall), the great hall (always at first-floor level, served by an external stairway) and the logis, they too at first-floor level ; a chapel is rare.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG In der Bauforschung ist den Patrizierbauten bisher als eigenständiger Kategorie innerhalb der städtischen Wohnarchitektur Frankreichs wenig Beachtung zugekommen. Anhand von Beispielen vornehmlich des 69

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

(Saal-Turm-Typ) bis 275 m² großen Raumes. Die Wohnräume liegen im Obergeschoß der weiten Flügel, deren Erdgeschoß Wirtschafts-zwecken nutzt. Kapellen sind äußerst selten. Zeitliche Verbreitung. Turm und/oder Saal können ab dem 11. Jh. auftreten und sind als Bauprogramm bis um 1200 verbreitet. Mehrflüglige Anlagen folgen ab dem 12. Jh., vierseitig umschlossene Höfe erst ab dem 14. Jh.. Während über den Magnatensitz der Jahrtausendwende nichts bekannt ist, gibt es eine Häufung erhaltener Anlagen aus den Jahren um 12801350, die möglicher-weise sozialgeschichtliche Ursachen hat. Um dieselbe Zeit erfahren die spät einsetzende Rayonnant- und dann auch Flamboyantgotik im untersuchten Gebiet eine fulminante Entwicklung. Patrizier in der Stadt. So sind die Adelssitze in Südwestfrankreich ein markanter Zug in den Städten. Ihre Bedeutung und Beständigkeit mögen auch die reiche Bürgerschicht beeindruckt und zum Nacheifer angeregt haben, besonders, was den Turmbau angeht. In ihrer Vielfalt lassen der Adelssitz und die Stadtarchitektur Südwestfrankreichs, des Forschungsstandes gegenwärtig, noch viele Fragen offen. Rittersitz und Stadthaus des Patriziers lassen sich im jeweils eigenen Gepräge sicherlich besser trennen, wenn der jeweilige soziale Einfluß auf die Architektur in Form und Funktion untersucht ist. In diesem Sinne sollten entsprechende Gebäude(formen) in mittelalterlich geprägten Städten, bastides und castra durch baugeschichtliche, archäologische und historische Einzelanalysen in ein helleres Licht gerückt werden. (Zusammenfassung: Bernhard Flüge, Freiburg)

Quercy und des Perigord seien hier Programm, Elemente und räumliche und soziale Bedeutung dieser Wohnform in Südwestfrankreich im Ansatz erläutert. Wohnarchitektur der Eliten. Anders als italienische Beispiele, sind die Patrizierbauten mit einer Straßenfassade ins Straßennetz integriert. Der piano nobile ist meist nur vom Hof oder über einen Hocheingang zugänglich. Das eigen-wirtschaftlich genutzte Sockelgeschoß ist meist zur Straße hin geschlossen, aber im Einzelfall müssen Verkaufsbuden diskutiert werden. Patrizierbauten konnten nicht nur vom Adel, sondern auch von der reichen bürgerlichen Oberschicht, die mit den „Grands“ in engem Kontakt stand, genutzt sein. Standorte der Architektur in der Stadt. In castra und kleineren Städten sind die Adelssitze zu forts segregiert zu finden oder an der Befestigung gelegen. Größere Städte besitzen in der Regel kein eigenes Adelsviertel. Hier treten die Bauten im Stadtzentrum, aber auch auf großen Besitzen entlang der Stadtmauer auf. Straßenecken sind bevorzugte Standorte, doch gibt es auch von der Straße zurückgesetzte Häuser. Einige Höfe, ursprünglich außerhalb gelegen, sind erst später von der Stadt vereinnahmt worden. Als reine Adelssitze, besonders von Rittern, stehen die Gebäude gern vom Marktgeschehen entfernt. Im Falle einer Zentrumslage wiederum legen weite Arkadenöffnungen im Erdgeschoß eine Geschäftsnutzung von Patrizierbauten nahe, so daß der Unterschied zum Wohn- und Geschäftshaus des Stadtbürgers nicht groß sein muß. Vier Typen sind anzutreffen: 1. Turmhäuser (mehrgeschossige Wohnhäuser) liegen direkt an der Straßenlinie wie auch im Blockinnern. 2. Rechteckige Saalhäuser mit einem oder zwei Obergeschossen besitzen einen Seitenhof mit dem Hauseingang oder sie haben einen Hinterhof und den Hauseingang von der Straße her. Stadthäuser mit arkadengeöffnetem Erdgeschoß nehmen eine Zwischenposition zwischen bürgerlichem Stadthaus und Adelssitz ein. 3. Saalhäuser mit Turm stehen bevorzugt an Straßenecken. Der Turm bietet meist wenig Platz, kann aber auch gleich großzügig wie das Saalhaus angelegt sein. 4. Mehrflüglige Anlagen stehen echten palais am nächsten. In L- oder U-Form gibt es sie mit Eckoder End-turm. Im Quercy dominiert die geschlossene vierflüglige Hofanlage, die auch als Vorstadt-wohnsitz und Landsitz der Bischöfe auftritt, aber sonst im SW seltener ist. Alle Typen zeichnen sich durch die Existenz eines Hofes aus, der i. d. R. zwischen 100.00 m² und 300.00 m² mißt. Elemente. Der Turm ist als Element reicher Wohnarchitektur stark verbreitet. Als bewohntes Turmhaus kann er bis zu 100 m² einnehmen, sonst nur um 20 m² oder weniger. Er dient keiner Wehrfunktion, sondern allein zur Darstellung des Besitzers, und enthält deswegen häufig den Hauseingang und ist stark durchfenstert. Überwölbte Räume sind am ehesten im Turm zu finden. Der repräsentativste Raum nimmt im Turmhaus meist das oberste Geschoß eine. Sonst geht der große Saal, im 1. Obergeschoß gelegen, auf die Straße hinaus und zeichnet sich auch in der Fassade ab. Repräsentativ sind auch die Hoftreppe, offener Kamin und Ausstattung des 50 - 65 m²

Bibliographie Anderson, R sd, mais vers 1870–5. Examples of the Municipal, Commercial and Street Architecture of France and Italy, from the 12th to the 15th Century, Londres Boudon, F, Chastel, A, Couzy H et Hamon, F 1977. Système de l’architecture urbaine. Le quartier des halles à Paris, Paris Cabanot, [Abbé] J 1982. ‘Burlats. La première demeure romane dite “Pavillon d’Adélaïde”’, Congrès archéol. de France, 140e session, Albigeois, 202– 5 Drouyn, L 1865. La Guyenne militaire, Bordeaux Drouyn, L 1874. Bordeaux vers 1450, Bordeaux Drouyn, L 1974. Le Périgord vu par [...], Périgueux: Société d’histoire et d’archéologie du Périgord Fabre, A 2000. ‘Les maisons médiévales du XIIe au XIVe siècle à Rodez’, Rev du Rouergue, 62, 133–68 Faure, S 1993. Étude architecturale du village de Cajarc du XIIIe au XVIe siècle, Mémoire de maîtrise d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail Fournioux, B 1993. ‘La Cité de Périgueux à la fin du Moyen Age: l’organisation de l’espace et ses références’, Bull Soc hist et archéol du Périgord, 70

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle France, 154e session, Haute-Garonne Pousthomis, B 1995. La tour d’Arles. Caussade (Tarn-etGaronne), Rapport d’Études préalable à la Restauration, déposé à la Conservation régionale des Monuments historiques de Midi-Pyrénées, Toulouse Rousset, V 1992. ‘La borie de Savanac’, Mém Soc archéol du Midi de la France, 52, 61–86 Scellès, M 1989. ‘La maison romane de Saint-AntoninNoble-Val (Tarn-et-Garonne)’, Mém Soc archéol du Midi de la France, 49, 44–119 Scellès, M 1994. Structure urbaine et Architecture civile de Cahors aux XIIe, XIIIe et XIVe siècles, Thèse de doctorat nouveau régime, Université de Toulouse — Le Mirail Scellès, M 1995. ‘L’architecture civile à Cahors aux XIIe, XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, Mém Soc archéol du Midi de la France, 55, 77–111 Scellès, M 1999. Cahors, ville et architecture civile au Moyen Âge, Cahiers du Patrimoine, 54, Inventaire Général, Paris: Éditions du Patrimoine. Séraphin, G 1990. Cahors et la Vallée du Lot, Cahors Séraphin, G 1992. Belvès, Étude préalable à l’Établissement d’une Zone de Protection du Patrimoine architectural, urbain et paysager, déposée au Service départemental de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine de la Dordogne Séraphin, G 1993. ‘Les tours et constructions civiles à angles arrondis dans les castra médiévaux du Fumélois’, Mém Soc archéol du Midi de la France, 53, 169–85 Séraphin, G 1995. Le castrum de Comarque, DEA d’Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie, Université de Toulouse — Le Mirail Séraphin, G 1999a. ‘Le castrum de Comarque’, Congrès archéol de France, Périgord, 156e Session, 1998, 161–93 Séraphin, G 1999b. ‘Salles et châteaux gascons, un modèle de maisons fortes’, Bull mon, 157, 11–42 Séraphin, G et Rémy, Ch 1999. ‘Le château d’Excideuil’, Congrès archéol de France, Périgord, 156e Session, 1998, 195–223 Sindou-Faurie, P-M 1983. ‘Un bourg fortifié du HautQuercy, Cardaillac’, Donjons et Forteresses, 5, 13–29 Trinquier, F 1991. La tour Palmata, Rapport de stage, Maîtrise des Sciences et Techniques, Université de Toulouse — Le Mirail Ugaglia, E 1978. La Romieu, une fondation du cardinal Arnaud d’Aux, Mémoire de maîtrise d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie, Université de Toulouse — Le Mirail

120, 33–60 Gardelles, J 1965. Histoire de Bordeaux, t II, Bordeaux médiéval (dir Higounet, Ch), Bordeaux Garrigou Grandchamp, P (2e éd.) 1994. Demeures médiévales, coeur de la cité, Paris Garrigou Grandchamp, P 1995. ‘L’architecture domestique dans les agglomérations périgourdines aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles’, Bull Soc hist et archéol du Périgord, 122, 683–728 Garrigou Grandchamp, P 1999. ‘Introduction à l’architecture domestique en Périgord aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, Congrès archéol de France, Périgord, 156e Session, 1998, 17–46 Laborie, Y 1990. ‘Architecture de l’habitat privé des XIIIe et XIVe siècles en milieu urbain: l’exemple d’un ostal à tour, îlot Fonbalquine, à Bergerac (Dordogne)’, Sites défensifs et sites fortifiés au Moyen Age entre Loire et Pyrénées, Aquitania, Supplément, n° 4, 75–92 Laborie, Y et Pichonneau, J-F, 1990. ‘Une tour-ostal à Agen’, Sites défensifs et sites fortifiés au Moyen Age entre Loire et Pyrénées, Aquitania, Supplément, n° 4, 63–74 Lartigaut, J 1966. ‘La maison dite de “L’Hébrardie” à Cajarc’, Bull Soc d’Études du Lot, 87, 93–6 Lartigaut, J 1979. ‘La châtellenie de Bélaye au Moyen Age’, Bull Soc d’Études du Lot, 100, 228–51 Lartigaut, J 1984. ‘Le castrum de Flaugnac’, Bull Soc d’Études du Lot, 105, 167–213 Lartigaut, J 1991. Puy-L’Évêque au Moyen Age. Le castrum et la châtellenie (XIIIe–XVe siècles), Bayac Lartigaut, J et Séraphin, G 1987. ‘Les bories des Cahorsins’, Le château près de la ville, Actes du second colloque de castellologie, Flaran, 37–53 Lauzun, P 1912. Souvenirs du vieil Agen, Agen Marquessac, Baron H de 1866. Hospitaliers de Saint-Jeande-Jérusalem en Guyenne, depuis le XIIe siècle jusqu’en 1793, Bordeaux Méras, M 1968. ‘L’architecture d’une bastide du XIIIe siècle: Castelsagrat’, Bull Soc archéol Tarn-etGaronne, 25–9 Miquel, J 1981. L’architecture militaire dans le Rouergue au Moyen Age et l’Organisation de la Défense, Rodez, 2 vol Napoléone, A-L 1988. ‘Les maisons romanes de Toulouse’, Archéol du Midi médiéval, 6, 123–132 Napoléone, A-L 1989. ‘La Raymondie de Martel’, Congrès archéol de France, 147e session, Quercy, 391–404 Napoléone, A-L 1993. Figeac au Moyen Age: les Maisons du XIIe au XIVe siècle, Thèse de doctorat nouveau régime, Université de Toulouse — Le Mirail (éditée par l’Association de Sauvegarde de Figeac et de ses Environs, Figeac, 1998) Napoléone, A-L 1998. ‘Urbanisme et habitat à Figeac aux XIIe, XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, Mém Soc archéol du Midi de la France, 58, 67–91 Napoléone, A-L, et Séraphin, G, à paraître. ‘Le château de Saint-Félix-Lauragais’, Congrès archéol de 71

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

INVENTAIRE DES MAISONS PATRICIENNES DU XIIe AU XIVe SIÈCLE

fenêtres à remplages (Napoléone 1993, 209–52; 1998, 85–7). Flaugnac (Lot): castrum avec nombreuses maisons de chevaliers, fin XIIIe et début XIVe siècle, en forme de salles et de tours (Lartigaut 1984).

QUERCY Albas (Lot): maison-tour du XIVe siècle (place de l’Église) (Séraphin 1990, 23–4).

Lamagdeleine (Lot): borie de Savanac, début du XIVe siècle; logis de type urbain, implanté sur une grande propriété agricole au bord du Lot; îlot de 28m x 23m; trois corps de logis en U encadrent une cour (160m2); tour d’angle (44m2); grande salle avec fenêtres à remplages et oculus (100m2) (Rousset 1992).

Belaye (Lot): maisons des milites castri dans le castrum, XIIIe siècle (Lartigaut 1984). Cahors (Lot): palais Duèze, début du XIVe siècle (rue Saint-Barthélémy): immense demeure construite par le frère du pape Jean XXII, adossée au rempart et occupant un îlot (47m x 30m); quatre ailes enserrant une cour de 290m2; tour d’angle merlonnée (45m2 par niveau); grande salle (272m2) occupant toute la façade sur rue; fenêtres rectangulaires à remplages (Scellès 1994, 215–66; 1995; 1999).

Martel (Lot): La Raymondie, début du XIVe siècle (place des Consuls); immense demeure occupant un îlot trapézoïdal (37m x 36m), construite par un membre de la famille de Turenne; quatre ailes avec cour centrale (105m2); entrée et chapelle dans la tour, placée à un angle, sur la place (55m2 par niveau); grand degré et galeries restituables, menant à la grande salle (deux pièces de 165m2 et 172m2); programme partiellement mixte: deux façades ajourées, à l’étage par des fenêtres barlongues à remplages, et au rez-de-chaussée par des files continues d’arcades commerciales (Napoléone 1989).

Cahors (Lot): palais de Via, début du XIVe siècle (rue du Château du Roi): immense demeure construite par un des premiers bourgeois de la ville, neveu de Duèze et frère d’un cardinal; nombreux corps de logis entourant deux cours de 200m2 et 315m2; tour placée sur un flanc (77m2 par niveau); dépendances très vastes (Scellès 1994, 95–105; 1999).

Montcabrier (Lot): castrum de Pestilhac: maisons de chevaliers, en forme de tours ou de salles avec tour, XIe et XIIe siècle; angles arrondis; bâtiment B: tour de 20m2 et salle de 65m2; bâtiment C: tour de 55m2 (Séraphin 1993).

Cajarc (Lot): L’Hébrardie, palais bâti par un Ebrard, évêque de Cahors, début du XIVe siècle: deux corps de logis en L, avec tour à l’extrémité de l’un d’eux (36m2); cour surélevée en terrasse à l’intérieur du L (105m2); nombreuses fenêtres géminées (Lartigaut 1966; Faure 1993, 55–86).

Puy-L’Évêque (Lot): L’Icheyrie, début du XIVe siècle; demeure des Del Pech, principale famille noble du castrum; salle barlongue (19m x 10m) avec cour à l’arrière et peu de percements sur la rue au rez-de-chaussée; fenêtres à remplages à l’étage (Lartigaut 1991).

Cardaillac (Lot): tours des co-barons, peu habitables (24m2 par niveau), accompagnées de logis indépendants, XIIIe siècle (Sindou-Faurie 1983). Castelnau-Montratier (Lot): salle barlongue de grandes dimensions (22m x 12m), fin XIIIe–début XIVe siècle (angle de la place Gambetta et de la rue capitaine Tailhade); en retrait par rapport à la place centrale; nombreuses fenêtres géminées. Inédite.

Castelsagrat (Tarn-et-Garonne): maison à ‘tour et salle’ du XIIIe siècle (sur la place); pièce voûtée, escalier à vis (Méras 1968). Caussade (Tarn-et-Garonne): tour d’Arles, maison-tour de la fin du XIIIe siècle; plan barlong et deux étages (66m2 par niveau); semble isolée à l’origine; accès à l’étage par porte surélevée; nombreuses fenêtres géminées et peintures murales (chevaliers) (Pousthomis 1995).

Catus (Lot): demeure à tour et salle, XIVe siècle (rue principale); en front de rue; fenêtres trilobées. Inédite. Figeac (Lot): château de Balène, début du XIVe siècle (rue de Balène): immense demeure occupant un îlot, construite par la riche famille noble de Balène; adossée au rempart; 4 ailes entourant une cour (106m2) et portail d’entrée dans la tour d’angle, sur la rue; grand degré et galerie menant à la grande salle: occupant tout l’étage d’une aile (185m2), elle est éclairée par de grandioses

Saint-Antonin (Tarn-et-Garonne): demeure à tour et salle, milieu du XIIe siècle (place de la Halle); logis des Graulhet, peut-être viguiers des vicomtes, avant d’être au XIVe siècle l’hôtel de ville; programme mixte: boutiques au rez-dechaussée, salle au premier étage (49m2), éclairée par une des plus belles claires-voies romanes de 72

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle castri XIIIe siècle (Séraphin et Rémy 1999).

France, et logis au deuxième étage; accès à l’étage par une porte sur la cour; tour (16m2 par niveau) (Scellès 1989).

Périgueux (Dordogne): hôtel d’Angoulême, XIe siècle (Cité); logis de chevaliers, à salle contre le rempart antique + tour gallo-romaine réaménagée; logis: 70m2 + 16m2, sur deux niveaux; tour offrant environ 15m2 par niveau (Fournioux 1993; Garrigou Grandchamp 1995).

PÉRIGORD Belvès (Dordogne): cinq tours des XIIe et XIIIe siècles (dans le fort); parmi elles, la tour de l’Auditeur est un donjon exigu, avec fenêtres géminées; la tour de l’hôtel Bontemps (rue de la Tour), paraît avoir jouxté un logis (Séraphin 1992).

Périgueux (Dordogne): château Barrière, XIIe et XVe siècle (Cité): logis de chevaliers; salle et tour bâties sur le rempart antique (Fournioux 1993; Garrigou Grandchamp 1995).

Belvès (Dordogne): hôtel de Comarque, XIVe siècle (43– 45, rue Manchotte); logis en forme de salle à deux étages, en front de rue; programme mixte: arcades au rez-de-chaussée; grande salle à l’étage éclairée par des fenêtres barlongues à remplages (Garrigou Grandchamp 1999).

Plazac (Dordogne): château-palais des évêques de Périgueux, XIIe–XIIIe siècle; grande demeure à trois ailes entourant une cour; plusieurs tours, dont une tour maîtresse à contreforts, devenue clocher de la chapelle (Garrigou Grandchamp 1995; 1999).

Bergerac (Dordogne): ostal noble de Malbec, XIIIe siècle (détruit); logis rectangulaire accosté d’une tour (hauteur 15m), en brique; rez-de-chaussée percé seulement d’une porte (Laborie 1990, 87–9).

Salignac-Eyvigues (Dordogne): grande demeure à plusieurs ailes, XIVe siècle (place de la Halle): occupe tout un îlot; programme mixte: corps principal sur la place: fenêtres barlongues à remplages à l’étage et arcades au rez-de-chaussée (Garrigou Grandchamp 1999).

Bergerac (Dordogne): ostal noble, XIIIe siècle (rue Fonbalquine; connu par des fouilles): logis barlong aboutant la rue (53m2) et tour dans son prolongement, à l’arrière (32m2); cour latérale fermée d’un mur (92m2) et dépendances (126m2) (Laborie 1990).

Sireuil, castrum de Comarque (Dordogne): logis chevaleresques, XIIe et XIIIe siècle; maisons-tours de plan barlong; au moins un étage (Séraphin 1995, 57–71 et Figure, 127–151; 1999).

Beynac (Dordogne): maison-tour dite l’ancien couvent, XIVe siècle: édifice barlong, à trois étages, avec fenêtres géminées et couronnement crénelé; dernier étage reconstruit; cheminée; escalier dans les murs (vue avant sa ruine in Drouyn 1974; Garrigou Grandchamp 1999). Beynac

AUTRES PROVINCES Rodez (Aveyron): maison de Guitard, XIVe siècle (angle de la rue du Touat et de la petite rue du Bosc): demeure d’angle composée d’une tour et d’une salle; armoiries sculptées; nombreuses fenêtres géminées trilobées avec oculus (Miquel 1981, vol. 1, 93; Fabre 2000).

(Dordogne): salle du XIIIe siècle, dite L’Auditoire: édifice barlong à un étage, bâti en retrait de la grande rue; mur-bouclier; deux cheminées (Garrigou Grandchamp 1999).

Villeneuve d’Aveyron (Aveyron): palais de la place des Conques, XIVe siècle; grande demeure à quatres ailes (19m50 x 14m); cour centrale; tour d’angle sur le rempart. Inédite.

Bigaroque (Dordogne): salle romane, XIIe–XIIIe siècle, au pied du castrum; deux étages; claires-voies au deuxième étage, encadrant une porte (Garrigou Grandchamp 1995).

Saint-Félix-Lauragais (Haute-Garonne): château-palais des Duèze, XIVe siècle: grande demeure située à l’extrémité du bourg; quadrilatère à cour centrale, avec plusieurs tours; chapelle indépendante; au moins trois ailes de logis; grande salle éclairée par des oculi (Napoléone et Séraphin, à paraître).

Biron (Dordogne): castrum avec nombreuses maisonstours et logis à tour et salle, ultérieurement agglomérés pour former un château (communication orale de G. Séraphin). Cause-de-Clérans (Dordogne): maison-tour, XIIIe siècle; plan barlong; deux étages; fente d’éclairage (Garrigou Grandchamp 1995).

Toulouse (Haute-Garonne): maison de Pierre Maurand, XIIe siècle (rue du Taur): demeure à deux ailes (340m2 + 250m2) formant un L sur une tour d’angle; fenêtres géminées; escaliers dans les murs; pièces voûtées dans la tour (48m2 par

Excideuil (Dordogne): castrum avec deux tours maîtresses et une quinzaine de maisons de milites 73

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

niveau) (Napoléone 1988, 125–32).

salle, peut-être bâtie par l’évêque d’Agen; pas d’arcades au rez-de-chaussée; fenêtres géminées à l’étage. Inédite.

Toulouse (Haute-Garonne): maison de la rue du Château, XIIe siècle (détruite): grand logis rectangulaire adossé au rempart gallo-romain; façade avec quatres fenêtres géminées construite sur la muraille (Napoléone 1988, 132–7).

Burlats (Tarn): pavillon d’Adélaïde, XIIe siècle; logis roman en forme de salle, à deux étages offrant chacun 70m2; premier étage presque aveugle; deuxième étage paré sur deux faces de fenêtres géminées très ornées (Cabanot 1982).

Condom (Gers): tour d’Andiran, XIVe siècle (place Bossuet); édifice isolé, en front de rue; trois étages (42m2 par niveau); fenêtres géminées. Inédite (NB: il existe deux autres tours inédites dans la ville).

Cordes (Tarn): tour de Colen, XIIIe siècle (angle des rues Obscure et des Lices); cinq niveaux; fenêtres géminées; escaliers à vis; fonctionnait peut-être avec la maison contiguë . Inédite.

La Romieu (Gers): demeure du Cardinal Arnaud d’Aux, XIVe siècle; grande demeure avec de nombreux corps de logis et dépendances entourant des cours, sans plan régulier; quadrilatère de 62m x 80m; tourelle belvédère (7m2) flanquant un des logis et accueillant l’entrée surélevée, accessible par un degré extérieur; fenêtres géminées et à remplages (Ugaglia 1978).

Gaillac (Tarn): tour Palmata, XIIIe siècle (10, rue Cavaillé-Coll); tour de 20m de haut; fenêtres géminées; salle voûtée avec peintures murales; escalier dans les murs; vestiges indiquant que deux ailes se raccordaient à elle pour former une grande demeure (Trinquier 1991).

Lectoure (Gers): maison-forte d’Albinhac, XIVe siècle (31, rue Nationale); demeure à tour et salle, en retrait de la rue principale. Inédite. Bordeaux (Gironde): hôtel du Puy-Paulin, XIIe–XIIIe siècle (actuel hôtel de l’Intendance): logis des Bordeaux, prévôts héréditaires; parfois appelé castrum, il est adossé au rempart gallo-romain, dont il annexe trois tours (Drouyn 1874, 460; Gardelles 1965, 496). Bordeaux (Gironde): hôtel du Soler, XIIIe siècle (détruit en 1856): logis et tour; précédé vers la rue d’une avant-cour protégée par une haute muraille (Gardelles 1965, 496). Sainte-Foy-la-Grande (Gironde): maison-tour, dite maison du Temple ou maison des Prêtres, XIVe siècle (24, avenue des Frères Reclus): édifice à trois étages; plan barlong avec tourelle carrée accolée (100m2 par niveau); située en centre d’îlot et très bien aménagée (cheminée, latrines, fenêtres géminées) (Drouyn 1865, 373–5; Marquessac 1866, 49–53). Agen (Lot-et-Garonne): tour-ostal, XIIe siècle (connue par des fouilles): bâtiment périurbain en forme de tour (72 m2 par niveau); cour fermée par un mur (Laborie et Pinchonneau 1990). Agen (Lot-et-Garonne): tour du Chapelet, XIIIe siècle (3, rue F Arago): tour à deux étages, contre le rempart; nombreuses fenêtres géminées (Lauzun 1912). Tournon d’Agenais ( Lot-et-Garonne): L’Abescat, fin du XIIIe siècle (rue de l’École); demeure à tour et 74

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle

Figure 1 Flaugnac (Lot), maison-tour de la fin du XIIIe siècle; logis chevaleresque avec porte à l’étage Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

Figure 2 Saint-Antonin (Tarn-et-Garonne), hôtel des Graulhet, résidence à tour et salle du milieu du XIIe siècle; arcades au rez-de-chaussée, accueillant chacune une échoppe; grande salle au premier étage; logis au second Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

75

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 3 Martel (Lot), La Raymondie, palais du début du XIVe siècle; plans du rez-de-chaussée (R) et de l’étage (E) et élévation de la façade sud: restitution P. Garrigou Grandchamp d’après les relevés de l’Agence des Bâtiments de France (c: cour, avec grand degré restitué; g: galeries; t: tour, avec entrée au rez-de-chaussée et chapelle à l’étage).

Figure 4 Puy l’Evêque (Lot), L’Icheyrie, début du XIVe siècle: salle de la famille Del Pech, située dans le fort Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

76

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle

Figure 5 Tournon d’Agenais (Lot-et-Garonne), résidence à tour et salle, dite L’Abescat, fin du XIIIe siècle; rareté des percements du rezde-chaussée et fenêtres géminées éclairant la grande salle Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

Figure 6 Martel (Lot), La Raymondie, palais du début du XIVe siècle; vue aérienne montant l’importance de l’édifice, qui occupe tout un îlot Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

77

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 7 1. Agen (Lot-et-Garonne): tour-ostal du XIIe siècle; plan du rez-de-chaussée, d’après Laborie et Pichonneau 1990 (c: cour: r: rempart urbain construit ultérieurement). 2 et 3. Sireuil (Dordogne), castrum de Comarque: maisons-tours du XIIIe siècle (2) et du XIIe siècle (3); plans des étages, d’après Séraphin 1995. 4. Montcabrier (Lot), castrum de Pestilhac: maison-tour du XIe siècle; plan du rezde-chaussée, d’après Séraphin 1993. 5. Sainte-Foy-la-Grande (Dordogne), maison des Prêtres: maison-tour du XIVe siècle; plan du troisième étage, d’après Drouyn 1865. 6. Condom (Gers), tour d’Andiran: maison-tour du XIVe siècle; plan du troisième étage, restitution P. Garrigou Grandchamp d’après les relevés de l’Agence des Bâtiments de France

78

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle

Figure 8 Beynac (Dordogne), maison-tour du XIVe siècle, dite l’Ancien Couvent Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

Figure 9 Cardaillac (Lot), maison-tour et logis d’un des co-barons, début du XIIIe siècle: à gauche la tour seule; à droite la tour flanquée d’un logis Clichés P Garrigou Grandchamp

79

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 10 Castelnau-Montratier (Lot), salle de la fin du XIIIe siècle; fenêtres géminées sur le petit côté; cordon d’appui et fantômes de fenêtres sur la grande façade Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

Figure 11 Burlats (Tarn), salle du XIIe siècle, dite Pavillon d’Adélaïde; la grande salle est située au deuxième étage Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

80

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle

Figure 12 1. Périgueux (Dordogne), Cité, hôtel d’Angoulême: demeure à tour et salle du XIe siècle; plan du rez-de-chaussée, d’après Rapine (Archives des M.H., plan n°37 143)(r et t: rempart et tour gallo-romains). 2. Montcabrier (Lot), castrum de Pestilhac: demeure à ‘tour et salle’, du XIe siècle; plan du rez-de-chaussée, d’après Séraphin 1993. 3. Saint-Antonin (Tarn-et-Garonne), maison des Graulhet (futur hôtel-de-ville); demeure à tour et salle du milieu du XIIe siècle; restitution P. Garrigou Grandchamp d’après Scellès 1989 (c: cour, avec escalier extérieur restitué; t: rue passant sous la tour). 4. Burlats (Tarn), Pavillon d’Adélaïde: salle du XIIe siècle; plan du deuxième étage, d’après Cabanot 1982. 5. Caussade (Tarn-et-Garonne), tour d’Arles: maison-tour de la fin du XIIIe siècle; plan du deuxième étage: restitution P Garrigou Grandchamp d’après fond de plan Pousthomis 1995.

81

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 13 Cahors (Lot), palais Duèze, début du XIVe siècle; plan du rez-de-chaussée et élévation de la façade sud, d’après Scellès 1994 (c: cour avec restitution de l’emplacement du grand degré en e; t: tour; S: emprise de la grande salle; la structure de la façade sur rue est hypothétique).

82

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle

Figure 14 1. Cajarc (Lot), L’Hébrardie: palais du début du XIVe siècle; plan du rez-de-chaussée: restitution P Garrigou Grandchamp d’après fond de plan Faure 1993 (c: cour en terrasse; t: tour). 2. Cahors (Lot), palais de Via, début du XIVe siècle; plan de masses d’après Scellès 1994 (c: cours; t: tour; l: corps de logis latéraux et postérieurs, restitués; h: position du corps de logis sur la rue).

83

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 15 Cahors (Lot), palais de Via, début du XIVe siècle; tour; au premier plan, souche de cheminée d’un des corps de logis du palais Cliché P Garrigou Grandchamp

84

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle

Figure 16 Figeac (Lot): château de Balène, palais du début du XIVe siècle; plans des rez-de-chaussée (R) et du premier étage (E) et élévation de la façade Est: restitutions d’après Napoléone 1993 (c: cour, avec grand degré conservé; g: galerie; t: tour, actuellement dérasée; S: grande salle).

85

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 17 Cahors (Lot), palais Duèze, début du XIVe siècle; axonométrie de l’état actuel: au premier plan à droite, l’aile sud: le coffre de la cheminée de la grande salle fait saillie à l’extrême droite, suivi des chambres, à sa gauche Dessin aquarellé de P Sadilkovà, d’après les relevés de P Roques; cliché Inventaire général

86

Pierre Garrigou Grandchamp: Les Résidences Patriciennes dans le Sud-Ouest de la France, du XIIe au XIVe siècle

a

b Figure 18 Figeac (Lot), château de Balène, début du XIVe siècle; a – fenêtres de la grande salle; b – portail sur rue, dans la tour Dessins d’Anderson

87

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

88

Bishops and base crucks: fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry by

John Crook

INTRODUCTION

THE PILGRIMS’ HALL COMPLEX

The domestic architectural history of early fourteenth-century England is notable for the emergence of an important group of open timber halls to which I have given the name ‘aisle derivative’.1 These employed innovative roofing techniques developed from simpler ‘true aisled’ halls: an ancient type in which the problem of roofing a wide building was solved by subdividing the hall longitudinally by arcades of full-length timber posts which supported each roof slope at approximately mid-height. Thus the plan of true aisled halls consisted of a central vessel, whose roof was supported by longitudinal arcade plates corresponding to the wall plates of a non-aisled building and supporting the upper roof triangle; the central vessel was flanked by aisles, the slope of whose roofs continued that of the upper roof.2 The roof types deriving from this basic formula were first studied systematically as a group by J T Smith in 1955.3 Over forty years later Smith’s pioneering observations remain valid; they provide a framework for the study of additions to the known corpus, which continue to be discovered – though it must be borne in mind that the survivors are likely to comprise only a small proportion of all the aisle-derivative halls constructed between the late thirteenth and mid-fifteenth centuries. For the detailed terminology of such structures we are also indebted to Smith.4 The defining feature of an aislederivative building is the presence of a pair of arcade plates. Unlike purlins they are set square rather than in the plane of the roof. The arcade plates are linked by tie-beams at each truss and are supported by a variety of post-like members deriving from the full-length arcade posts of true aisled halls: shortened posts in raised-aisle construction, base crucks, or hammer posts. The common origin of these three aisle-derivative types is admirably demonstrated by their unique known occurrence together in a single building, the so-called ‘Pilgrims’ Hall complex’ in Winchester Cathedral Close.5 In this paper I propose therefore to treat the Winchester building as my main example of aisle-derivative construction (while recognizing that it is by no means the first occurrence of the family), relating other halls in southern England to it.

I have published accounts of the Pilgrims’ Hall complex extensively elsewhere, and the reader is referred to those articles.6 It consisted, in fact, of two halls lying end to end (Figures 1–2), dating from c 1308. The main hall (i.e. the ‘Pilgrims’ Hall’, as it has been known since the early nineteenth century), survives relatively intact after the removal of post-medieval additions; it has stone walls and was originally of three bays. Its two end trusses were of the raised-aisle type, the posts being supported by the wall plates of the end walls; this arrangement has survived at the north end. The two open trusses are of hammer-beam construction, the truncated arcade posts (in this context termed ‘hammer posts’) being supported on substantial timber brackets resting on corbels. The ends of the hammer beams are decorated with human heads. I believe the Pilgrims’ Hall to have been the monastic guest-hall of the Priory of St Swithun. Adjoining the Pilgrims’ Hall to the south, and constructed in the same building operation, was formerly a two-bay hall, which I have suggested was the private hall of the monastic guest-master or ‘hostiller’ responsible for the guest-hall.7 The walls of this second hall were timber-framed rather than of stone, which might suggest that the complex incorporated an earlier, stone building at its northern end. At one end of this second hall was a raised-aisle truss of the type already described, forming the party wall with the Pilgrims’ Hall. At the south end was a truss of true aisled construction, with full-length arcade posts. The central truss was of basecruck construction; that is to say, the arcade posts of the parent type were replaced by cranked (bent) timbers, of which the lower, vertical portion acted as the main posts of the outer walls of the hall. Finally, the southernmost bay of the building formed a third major division of the building; I interpret this sixth bay as a service bay, possibly with a solar over a room referred to in the post-medieval period as a ‘cellar’. The basecruck hall and service bay were adapted for domestic accommodation at the dissolution of St Swithun’s Priory, and were greatly altered in the 1660s and 1680s, but enough of the medieval structure remains encased within the walls of the house (now the oldest part of the Pilgrims’ School) for its original form to be determined. That the entire six-bay building was of a single constructional phase is demonstrated by the arcade plates, which are continuous throughout the building, and scarfjointed from south to north in positions within the building that would have been impossible had the northernmost guesthall been a later addition. Furthermore, the carpentry of all

1

2

3 4

5

Crook 1991, 134. The term was adapted from J T Smith’s analysis of halls deriving from the aisled form (Smith 1955). I refer to the parent group of aisled halls as ‘true aisled’. For an overview and comprehensive inventory and distribution map of true aisled halls, see Sandall 1986. Smith 1955. For ‘arcade plate’, see ibid, 77; though in the context of aisle derivatives Smith preferred the term ‘purlin’ for these plates. This somewhat clumsy term is used to denote the entire building of which the hammer-beam hall known as Pilgrims’ Hall forms only a part.

6 7

89

Crook 1991, superseding earlier papers referred to therein. ibid, 155.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

parts of the roof above (and including) the tie-beams is uniform throughout the building. DISCUSSION: THE DEVELOPMENT DERIVATIVE TRUSS TYPES

OF

rising from the lower tie-beam to the back of the posts. Very similar shores are found in the end trusses of the Pilgrims’ Hall. At Merton College, on the other hand, the shores are omitted. Raised-aisle construction lacked the elegance of base crucks or the apparent prestige of hammer beams, discussed in the following sections, and suffered from the visual disadvantage of the tie-beam crossing the hall at the level of the top of the walls. Interestingly, at Gate House Farm, Felsted, the centre of the tie-beam was cut away next to the posts which it supported, producing the effect of a hammer-beam structure.

AISLE-

It is significant that the only use of full-length arcade posts in the Pilgrims’ Hall complex is in a closed truss in the timberframed half of the building. Several other examples of aislederivative halls may be cited where the true aisled truss is found only in spere-trusses separating an entry bay from the body of the hall. This lends weight to the notion – again, advanced by Smith – that derivative forms were developed in open trusses in order to clear the floor of the encumbrance of arcade posts.

BASE-CRUCK CONSTRUCTION The most elegant solution to the problem of constructing a wide open hall without aisles was by using ‘base crucks’ (Figure 3), a term coined by Smith.11 Base crucks were more tightly defined by Alcock and Barley as ‘single baulks of timber which start well below the eaves and rise to the level of the lowest transverse member’.12 In a later paper, Alcock added that ‘Above this the roof may take a variety of forms, including that of another length of timber to continue the blade. The term ‘short principal’ is used for those examples which do not have the long feet of true base-crucks, but which still extend only up to the lowest transverse member’.13 Arguments about the origins of base crucks, and indeed about just which structures should be designated by the term have continued for many years amongst students of medieval timber-framed buildings.14 It was the view of the late John Fletcher that the term ‘base cruck’ was ‘an unfortunate misnomer’, implying as it does a relationship (which he rejected) between ‘base’ and ‘true’ crucks.15 To add to the confusion, Smith’s original definition embraced what appear to me to be two independent constructional types, which are not necessarily related in origin: truncated versions of ‘true crucks’,16 and those with which I am concerned in this paper, namely those demonstrably within the aisled tradition – though even here the distinction is blurred by some hybrids which share features both of true cruck and aisled construction. I consider therefore that the term ‘base cruck’ covers too broad a range of structures; but to avoid clouding the picture still further, I shall use the phrase ‘aisle-derivative base crucks’ in this paper if confusion seems likely to arise. As to their genesis, thanks to the efforts of indefatigable dendrochronologists a corpus of securely dated examples of both types is gradually being

RAISED-AISLE CONSTRUCTION Raised-aisle trusses are found only above the masonry walls at the ends of the Pilgrims’ Hall, and it may be objected that they thus resemble only superficially the open raised-aisle trusses encountered elsewhere. The need to support the ends of the arcade plates in this way in the Winchester example is a consequence of the form of the end of the roof, which has hipped gables; in other comparable buildings the arcade plates are more commonly supported on posts resting on corbels embedded in the masonry of full-height stone gables. Examples of raised aisles in open trusses, with the posts supported on a lower tie-beam at the level of the top of the main walls, occur in a number of buildings which have been dated to c 1300, the best known being the Little Hall of Merton College, Oxford and the fourteenth-century Gate House Farm, Felsted, Essex, both cited by Smith.8 A new example from some fifty years earlier has now been discovered at Wherwell, in Hampshire. Formerly an open hall of six bays, built in two phases separated by nearly thirty years, this building has been identified by its investigator as the Infirmary Hall of the convent of Wherwell, erected by Abbess Euphemia (ante 1219 to 1257).9 Reliably dated by dendrochronology to 1249–50 (with a later phase of enlargement in similar style in 1279–80),10 this appears to be the earliest extant example of a timber hall of raised-aisle construction. Though the scantling of the major timbers is slighter than that of the fourteenth-century examples, Wherwell possesses all the features essential to an aislederivative structure, notably the square-set arcade plate, scarfed at intervals and supported on the truncated posts, together with barely curved braces from the posts to the plate. In keeping with the early date of this structure, the braces from the posts to the tie-beam consist of the upper ends of straight passing-braces, with their feet tenoned into the lower tie-beam and secured to the upper tie by notched-lap joints. At Felsted the single braces have mutated into two sets of braces: arch-braces between the posts and the tie-beam, and rear braces or shores more or less in the plane of the roof, 8

9 10

11

Smith 1958, 140. Alcock and Barley, 1972, 133. 13 Alcock 1981, 4. 14 The latest major assault on the problem are the papers by Smith 1981 and Alcock 1981 in Alcock (ed.) 1981 and more recently still by Mercer 1996. The latest discussion is that of Pearson 1994, 56–7. 15 Fletcher and Crook 1984. 16 Alcock and Barley 1981 later excluded from the base-cruck definition the truncated true crucks to which Smith had given the name ‘type W’. See Smith 1975, 3, for a definition of ‘type W’ crucks. Also to be excluded are the late- and post-medieval ‘cruck-like forms’ of wall posts illustrated by Colman 1990. 12

Smith 1955, 87–9. Gate House Farm is illustrated in Walker 1987, 29 (Figure 5). Roberts 1998, 145–9. Miles and Haddon-Reece 1996, 99.

90

John Crook: Bishops and base crucks: fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry

established;17 in due course it will be time to examine once again, the question of the origins of ‘aisle-derivative base crucks’. At present, however, only a small proportion of the structures falling within Smith's base-cruck definition have been tree-ring dated. Two possible origins are likely in my view. One possibility is that the genesis of aisle-derivative base crucks is indeed to be found in truncated cruck-like structures.18 It is possible that these truncated crucks, characterized by the absence of an arcade plate or any demonstrable link with the aisled form, suggested to carpenters who were developing new aisle-derivative forms that the arcade post might be of cranked profile, so that the lower part performed the function of a principal wall post in the aisle wall: this conflation of the two posts produced a base-cruck blade.19 The upper part of the blade followed the plane of the roof; and the braces from the blade to the arcade plate, which in true aisled construction lay in the vertical plane, were also inclined in the plane of the roof, like the more common wind-braces. The arch-braces from post to tie-beam were greatly stretched as a result of the new configuration. The problem with this interpretation is that base crucks appear to have made their appearance throughout England, both in the so-called ‘cruck zone’ and outside it, only a short time after the appearance of the first securely dated examples of true crucks in the last third of the thirteenth century. An alternative pedigree is suggested by the (much reconstructed) roof of the Old Deanery, Salisbury, where the arcade plate is supported on inclined posts resting on corbels set in the masonry walls.20 These ‘short principals’ (to use Alcock and Barley’s terminology) are straight, apart from a slight alteration in the line of their soffits where they run into the supporting corbels. The Old Deanery is thought to have been erected by Robert of Wykehampton, dean of Salisbury from 1258 until 1274, when he became bishop; in 1277 he granted to his successors in the decanate the buildings which he had formerly occupied (and, as it is supposed, erected) in the Close. The early date of the Old Deanery (before 1274 if it was built for Dean Robert), places it amongst the earliest of roofs broadly falling within the base-cruck category. Although its location within the ‘cruck zone’ might suggest the influence of true crucks on the aisled tradition, it might equally have been constructed by a carpenter with no experience at all of the true cruck tradition.

Obviously relevant to this question is the fact that base crucks are found both in buildings with stone walls, and those that are entirely timber-framed. In the first category, the blades are usually supported on corbels or die into the wall at approximately two-thirds height; in the second they are fulllength, typically resting on a sill supported on a low basal wall. Whatever the origins of base crucks in our aislederivative group, their close affinity with the ‘true aisled’ parent form is easily demonstrated. They are typified by the close similarities of their constructional detail to the aisled forms from which they derive. The most obvious link is the use of crown posts in such buildings. A more significant, constructional similarity derives from the use in true aisled construction of the well-known three-way lap-dovetail joint linking the arcade post, the arcade plate, and the tie-beam; this necessitated the formation of a jowl in the post to allow the front part of post to be tenoned directly into the tiebeam.21 Exactly the same feature is found in many basecruck trusses; their jowled blades allow the same three-way linkage (Figure 4a). In practice, the slanting of the post as a base-cruck blade threatened the strength of the jowl because only a narrow throat was left;22 and a more satisfactory way of making the link was achieved by using a short ‘spandrel post’ between the arch-brace and the tie-beam, which trapped the tip of the base-cruck blade (Figure 4b). This is what is found at the Pilgrims’ Hall complex, probably the earliest use of the feature (Figure 5); it also occurs at Marwell Hall near Winchester (tree-ring dated to 1291–1333, probably erected c 1316),23 in the probably contemporary entrance block of Dartington Hall, Devon (Figure 6), 24 and – later in the fourteenth century – at the so-called ‘Tudor Tavern’ in Taunton (Figure 7). I have suggested that Thomas of Witney, architect to both Winchester and Exeter Cathedrals, may have been responsible for this feature and may have brought it to Devon. 25 An important group of base-cruck trusses employ double tie-beams. These possess an arcade plate and several are associated with true aisled trusses. Some of these appear to be of earlier date than the fourteenth-century examples discussed above. 26 At West Bromwich Old Hall (dated to 1273–4),27 the apparently related example of Wasperton Manor Farm (Warwicks), and at Eastington Hall, Longdon 21

17

18

19

20

These are published annually by the Vernacular Architecture Group in the admirable ‘Tree-Ring Date Lists’ in Vernacular Architecture. The origins of base crucks in the cruck tradition were maintained, contra Fletcher, by Alcock and Barley 1981, a survey of the then known examples of aisle-derivative base crucks and our ‘truncated crucks’. The results of Dr Alcock’s on-going Leverhulme Cruck Project are awaited. This typological link was suggested by Brunskill 1985, 95, who hedges his bets: ‘Base crucks may be considered as truncated crucks (as the term suggests) or as posts with inward-inclining upper parts’. Brunskill makes no reference to the aisled form, and refers to the arcade plate of a base-cruck truss as a ‘square set purlin’; and his plate 5, illustrating ‘base crucks’, shows the raised truncated crucks of the tithe barn at Bradford-on-Avon. Elsewhere (p 42) he acknowledges that ‘there is some dispute as to whether base crucks have been properly classified and should be called crucks at all’. Drinkwater, 1964.

22

23 24

25

26

27

91

At the Old Deanery, Salisbury, however, the blade is simply tenoned into the arcade plate, without the three-way articulation with the tiebeam; presumably an archaic feature, but it is also found in an apparently later base-cruck truss at York Farm, West Hagbourne (Oxon). I am grateful to Christopher Currie for information about the latter example. Unless a massive, untapered blade was used, as at Brewood (Staffs), described and illustrated by Meeson 1996, 15 and Figure 3. Crook 1993. For the tree-ring date see Groves and Hillam 1994, 25. Emery 1958. I believe (contra Emery, 187) this roof also to be of early fourteenth-century date, but that it was modified towards the end of the century. Crook 1991. For the ‘Tudor Tavern’, see Williams and Gilson 1981, 45–51. Indeed, Gibb, 1982, 23–5, postulates a development from the ‘early’ type with double tie-beams to the ‘later base-cruck trusses’ of the fourteenth century. Esling et al 1989, 41.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

(Hereford and Worcs), all of which seem to be of late thirteenth-century date, the lower tie-beam simply acts as a strainer beam linking the two blades; the blades are tenoned into the arcade plate and the upper tie is dovetailed on the top of the arcade plates. There are no jowls. In the examples cited the two tie-beams are linked by short posts; at West Bromwich these are lap-jointed rather than tenoned. Lime Tree House, Harwell (Oxon) has an inserted base-cruck truss, together with new crown posts, replacing earlier passing-braces, and dated to c 1300.28 Here the blades are tenoned into the lower tie-beam, and the arcade plates are trenched into the top of the tie, which is then capped by an upper tie-beam dovetailed to the top of the plates. The two plates are linked by free tenons. A similar arrangement (but with short posts between the tie-beams) occurs at Long Crendon Manor House (Bucks).29 At Handsacre Hall (Staffs), dated to c 1306,30 the blades are tenoned into the tiebeam, again forming a bridge-like structure; the arcade plates are trenched above the tie-beam and secured by wedgeshaped capping-pieces rather than an upper tie-beam; and a very similar arrangement occurs at Stanway tithe barn (Glos). The upper roof triangle at Handsacre employs common rafter couples with long arch-braces similar to those found in Hampshire at Marwell Hall and Riversdown (a small basecruck hall near Warnford), of similar or slightly later date. The key to these examples with double tie-beams lies, perhaps, in the techniques of construction. By linking the blades by means of a strainer beam or a lower tie-beam, the bridge-like structure thus formed could be reared longitudinally, unlike the types discussed above, which must have been assembled component by component, using temporary shores and scaffolding.31 Finally, several eclectic base-cruck structures exist which defy classification, being represented by single examples. Amongst published examples, The Hall House, Newland, Sherborne deserves mention.32 Here the two basecruck trusses of an original three-bay hall appear to derive from the double tie-beam type, but the vestigial lower tie, into which the blades are tenoned as at Lime Tree House and Handsacre Hall, is reduced to pentagonal pieces cradling the arcade plate, and the arch-braces are tenoned along their length both into these pieces and into the main tie, which is dovetailed to the plates in the normal way. Its investigator suggests an early fourteenth-century date. Vestigial lower tie-beams were also found in the central truss of a two-bay hall in the central range of ‘The Irish Menswear Shop’, Loughborough (scandalously demolished 1975), tree-ring dated to c 1348.33 Here, however, the upper tie was raised well above the level of the arcade plates, and was supported by extended arch-braces from the base-cruck blades. There was apparently no crown 28 29

30 31

32 33

post. These examples suggest that the carpenters of the fourteenth century employed a wide variety of variations on the base-cruck theme; it is probably illusory to attempt to draw too tightly defined a pedigree for these disparate structures. HAMMER BEAMS With the origins of hammer-beam construction we are on more secure ground; although here, too, problems of terminology and definition also occur. In a hammer-beam truss the arcade post is truncated (forming a hammer post), and supported on a triangulated bracket normally formed by the hammer beam projecting from the head of the wall, a wall post, and an arch-brace. To complete the triangulation, a rear brace or shore is set in the plane of the roof between the hammer post and the hammer beam. The Pilgrims’ Hall provides the earliest example of the type in a hall; but in fact the same device was employed in the framing of the lantern roof of the Old Bishop's Kitchen, Chichester (dated to 1293–1320).34 This building is square on plan, and a plate running around the roof in a position analogous to an arcade plate is supported on posts which in turn rest on pairs of hammer-beam brackets, projecting from adjacent walls and joined at their tips. This unusual use of hammer-beam construction strongly suggests that earlier examples of more conventional trusses formerly existed. Hammer-beam construction never achieved the popularity of base crucks, perhaps because of the unstable nature of the structure. Extant examples are relatively rare. A single hammer-beam truss has been discovered at Upton Court, near Slough.35 This is also an entirely timber-framed building. The hammer-beam truss has a double tie-beam. The hammer post is tenoned into the lower tie, and the arcade plate is trapped between the lower and the upper tie; the two tie-beams are linked by a pair of free tenons. The remarkably slender hammer beams and the wall posts are triangulated by solid brackets, decorated with a quatrefoil on the upper face. The truss is unusual in that it has been interpreted as forming part of a large dormer window whose ridge comprised an extension of the truss at the level of the lower tie-beam. The building has been dated by dendrochronology to c 1319– 20.36 Of slightly later date, on stylistic grounds of its limited decoration, is the hammer-beam truss at the timberframed hall at Tiptofts, Wimbish (Essex). As yet to be treering dated, this hall seems to date from around 1335–40.37 The form, but not the function, of hammer-beam trusses was employed at a large number of later buildings as ‘false hammer beams’. These are not aisle derivatives, for they lack the distinctive feature of an arcade plate. Several

See below, note 41. ‘Long Crendon Manor’, The Antique Collector, 25, February 1954, 2– 10. Esling et al 1990, 38. For the assembly sequence of the base-cruck truss of the Pilgrims’ Hall complex, see Crook 1991, 153–4. The inserted example with a double tie-beam at Harwell was presumably built rather than reared. Gibb 1984. Werrell 1977. For the date, see Laxton et al 1984, 66.

34

Tyers and Hibberd 1993, 52. Thornes and Fradgley 1988. 36 Howard et al 1988, 46. 37 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) 1916, 351–3, where it is suggested that the hammer-beam truss was adapted into that form from a true aisled structure similar to the extant south truss separating the narrower entrance bay from the two major bays of the hall. 35

92

John Crook: Bishops and base crucks: fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry

are found at Salisbury,38 and somewhat later examples include above all the famous angel roofs of East Anglia. But the supreme expression of the genre is Hugh Herland’s reroofing of Westminster Hall at the end of the fourteenth century, where the hammer beams are supplemented by huge arch-braces. A smaller version of the design, dating from the fifteenth century, occurs at the Old Law Library, No. 8, The Close, Exeter.39

In Kent, Sarah Pearson has noted that base crucks tended to be ‘found in areas where the estates are likely to have been granted relatively recently’ – ie, they were erected by ‘new money’.48 She refers to the ‘new men’, who ‘may have been building the first structure on the site, unhindered by any physical or psychological burdens from the past’, in contrast with older manors where true aisled halls remained the norm in the late thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries. In view of the apparent prestige of base crucks, another use is somewhat surprising. As well as being used in grand halls, they also occur in the great monastic and ecclesiastical barns of the West Country. Amongst examples one might cite the episcopal manorial barns at Bishop’s Court, Sowton (Devon), and at Bishops Cleeve (Glos); monastic examples include Stanway tithe barn (a grange of Tewkesbury Abbey), Middle Littleton tithe barn (Hereford and Worcs), erected by Evesham Abbey after 1315,49 and ‘Abbots Grange A’, one of two barns at Broadway in the same county. These are clearly agricultural buildings of high quality, and it will be noted that they were erected by the same class of patrons who put up the domestic halls which are the main subject of this paper. Later in the century, aisle-derivative construction is encountered in far more modest buildings. The prestigious type appears to have moved down the social scale. The virtue of aisle-derivative construction, with its economical use of timber, was that it could be used for quite small houses. Small hammer-beam halls are a rarity. At a house called ‘Chateaubriand’ in the High Street, Burwash (Sussex) are the remains of a timber-framed hall of two unequal bays, with a single aisle on the north side.50 The central, open truss possessed a hammer beam, triangulated by a solid bracket integral with the wall post rather than a curved brace. Its investigator suggested that the structure dates from c 1415.51 Surviving examples of small base crucks are more common. At Trees Cottage, Froxfield (Hants), a small twobay base-cruck hall has a central truss dated to 1359–60.52 Its investigator comments that ‘no evidence has been found to suggest that it . . . was built for someone of high social status’.53 Other small-scale Hampshire examples occur at Riverside, East Meon, single-aisled and dated to c 1350,54 and at Mill Hill, New Alresford, perhaps built by one of the town’s wealthy merchants in the fourteenth century.55 In Kent Sarah Pearson has examined a group of base-cruck halls, built by ‘wealthy peasants’; and Eric Mercer has contrasted these with the base-cruck halls of Shropshire, which he defines as built by ‘minor gentry’.56 Although base crucks continued to be employed for a further century, open halls were gradually being replaced

AISLE-DERIVATIVE HALLS AND SOCIAL STATUS The Pilgrims’ Hall was a monastic building of quality, probably erected by Thomas of Witney for Prior Henry Woodlock (1295–1304), who later became bishop of Winchester (1304–16). This is entirely appropriate. Early examples of aisle-derivative halls were typically erected either by institutions such as priories, Oxford colleges (such as Merton, mentioned above), or by individuals of the social status of a prior, a bishop, or a knight of the shire. A few examples may suffice here. The Old Deanery, Salisbury, appears, as we have seen, to have been built by Dean Robert of Wykehampton (1258–74). The entrance block at Dartington was probably built William, Lord Martin.40 Upton Court, Slough, with its hammer-beam truss, was probably erected by Merton Priory, who held the manor of Upton. At Lime Tree House, Harwell (Oxon), formerly ‘Catewy’s Farm’, the central truss of an earlier, true aisled hall, dated to 1243–7,41 was replaced by a base-cruck truss at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This house originally formed part of the manor of the Earl of Cornwall, and it was thus modified soon after it was acquired by William Catewy in around 1300.42 It has been suggested that the hall at Newlands, Sherborne, was built by a bishop of Salisbury as an administrative centre for his manor in that town.43 Marwell Hall was probably erected c 1316 by William Woodlock, a kinsman of the Bishop of Winchester.44 The base-cruck hall at Riversdown, near Warnford, which shares some constructional features with Marwell, was probably built by ‘a family of knightly status’.45 The hammer-beam hall at Tiptofts (which derives its name from the Tibetot family), was probably built (or rebuilt from an earlier house) by John de Wanton (or Wauton), Sheriff of Essex (d. 1347).46 Presumably somewhat lower down the social scale was the rector of Coningsby (Lincs) who built a base-cruck hall in the mid-fourteenth century.47 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46

47

They are briefly discussed in Crook 1991, 151–2. Portman 1966, 68 and Figure vi. But see Emery 1958, 187. Fletcher 1981, 39. Fletcher 1979. Only in 1370 did the house become a property of the Bishops of Winchester, as Currie 1986, 51, has demonstrated. The date of c 1300 is confirmed by the tree-ring result for the collar-purlin of 1294–1306: Hillam and Fletcher 1983, 62. Gibb 1984, 32. Crook 1993, 37–41. Roberts 1993, 181. Morant 1978, ii, 558, unless it be John de Tibetot, knight, who in 1365 held one messuage, 290 acres of land, and one acre of meadow in Wimbish: Fowler (ed) 1929–49, 144. Barley et al 1969, also illustrated and discussed in idem 1986, 142.

48

Pearson 1994, 56. Dating of arcade posts by Siebenlist 1980, 34. 50 The use of a single aisle conforms to normal practice for true aisled halls in central and east Sussex, as demonstrated by Kathleen Sandall 1986, 23 (distribution map). 51 Martin 1974. 52 Roberts 1993. For the date, see also Haddon-Reece and Miles 1992, 48. 53 Roberts 1993, 182. 54 Lewis et al 1988, 36–8. 55 ibid, 39–41; Roberts 1993, 183, citing ipse 1987, 255–7. 56 Mercer 1996, 1. 49

93

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Pilgrim-Saalkomplex im Kathedralenplatz von Winchester vorgefunden werden. Dieser Saal ist deshalb ein sehr wichtiger Bau in der Diskussion dieses Bautypen. Der Bau wurde von Klostern von St Swithuns von Winchester hergestellt. Andere ‘seitenschiff-abgängliche’ Säle wurden typischerweise von Herren mit Bischof-oder Ritter Rang dieses ‘shire’ errichtet; während des 14 Jh. wurde dieser Bautyp dann schnell von Leuten von der unteren sozialen Schicht adoptiert.

by houses employing different carpentry techniques: Wealden houses in the south-east, the use of clasped purlins, the introduction of intermediate floors. No doubt these houses achieved a level of comfort that was lacking in the draughty open halls of the thirteenth and fourteenth century; but they lacked the grandeur which even still may be detected in the surviving examples of the great aisle-derivative halls of the early fourteenth century. ABSTRACT During the fourteenth century a distinct group of timber halls developed in England, here referred to as ‘aisle-derivative’ halls. In the parent, ‘true aisled’ hall the aisles are separated from the body of the hall by a timber arcade supported on arcade posts. This paper examines the various ways in which derivative forms evolved which avoided the encumbrance of posts within the hall, by using raised-aisle trusses, base crucks, or hammer beams. All three derivative forms, as well as the basic true aisled truss, are found in the Pilgrims’ Hall complex in Winchester Cathedral Close, which is therefore a key building in discussion of the type. It was erected by the Prior and Convent of St Swithun, Winchester; other aislederivative halls were typically erected by men of the status of a bishop or a knight of the shire; during the fourteenth century the type was rapidly adopted by people lower down the social scale.

Bibliography Alcock, N W (ed) 1981. Cruck Construction: an Introduction and Catalogue, CBA Research Report, No. 42 Alcock, N W 1981. ‘The definition of a cruck’, in Alcock (ed) Alcock, N W and Barley, M W 1972. ‘Medieval roofs with base-crucks and short principals’, Antiq J, 52, 132–68 Alcock, N W and Barley, M W 1981. ‘Medieval roofs with base-crucks and short principals: additional evidence’, Antiq J, 61, 322–8 Barley, M W et al. 1969. ‘The medieval parsonage houses, Coningsby, Lincolnshire’, Antiq J, 49, 346–66 Barley, M W 1986. Houses and History Brunskill, R W 1985. Timber building in Britain, rev ed (London) Colman, S 1990. ‘Base-cruck usages in Suffolk’, Vernacular Arch, 21, 10–15 Crook, J 1991. ‘The Pilgrims’ Hall, Winchester. Hammerbeams, base-crucks and aisle-derivative roof structures’, Archaeologia, 119, 129–59 Crook, J 1993. ‘The medieval roof of Marwell Hall, Hampshire’, Antiq J, 73, 37–68 Currie, C R J 1986. ‘Bishop’s Manor and Catewy’s Farm, Harwell (Berks., later Oxon.)’, Vernacular Arch, 17, 51 Emery, A 1958. ‘Dartington Hall, Devonshire’, Archaeol J, 115, 184–202 Drinkwater, N 1964. ‘The Old Deanery, Salisbury’, Antiq J, 44, 41–59 Esling, J, Howard, R E, Laxton, R R, Litton, C D, and Simpson, W G 1989. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 29: Nottingham University tree-ring dating laboratory results’, Vernacular Arch, 20, 39–41 Esling, J, Howard, R E, Laxton, R R, Litton, C D, and Simpson, W G 1990. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 33: Nottingham University tree-ring dating laboratory results’, Vernacular Arch, 21, 37–41 Fletcher, J M 1979. ‘The Bishop of Winchester's medieval manor-house at Harwell, Berkshire, and its relevance in the evolution of timber-framed aisled halls', Archaeol J, 136, 173–92 Fletcher, J M 1981. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 4 (by J Fletcher and M Tapper): Tree-ring dates for buildings with oak timber’, Vernacular Arch, 12, 38–9 Fletcher, J M and Crook, J 1984. ‘The date of the Pilgrims’ Hall, Winchester’, Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc, 40, 130–3

RÉSUMÉ Au XIVe siècle, un groupe particulier de salles basses à pans de bois se répand en Angleterre, dénommée ici ‘salles basses dérivées des salles à nef et bas côtés’. A l’origine, dans ces salles basses, les bas côtés sont séparés de la salle elle-même par une arcade en charpente, soutenue par des poteaux. Cet article étudie les différentes manières dont ces formes dérivées ont évolué, afin d’éviter la gêne des poteaux à l’intérieur de la salle, en utilisant les raised-aisle trusses, base crucks ou hammer beams. Ces trois formes dérivées, comme celles d’origine, se retrouvent dans l’ensemble du Pilgrims’Hall, dans l’enceinte de la cathédrale de Winchester, qui est pour cette raison un édifice-clé dans les discussions sur de sujet. Elle fut construite par le prieur et le couvent de St Swithun, à Winchester. Les autres salles dérivées de ce type furent érigées de façon significative par des hommes du niveau d’un évêque ou d’un petit – ou moyen – noble. Au XIVe siècle, ce type fut rapidement adopté par des gens d’une condition sociale inférieure. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Während des 14 Jh. entwickelte sich in England eine ganz bestimmte Art von Holzsälen, die hier als ‘seitenschiffabgängliche’ Säle bezeichnet werden. Bei ihrem Vorganger, dem ‘seitenschiff-echten’ Saal, sind die Seitenschiffe vom Hauptschiff des Saals von einer Holzarkade die mit Arkadenpfosten gestützt ist, getrennt. Dieser Artikel untersucht die verschiedenen Arten in welchen sich abgängliche Formen entwickelten, die die Umständlichkeit von Stützpfosten innerhalb des Saals vermeideten, indem man sich mit erhöhten Stützpfeilern, Stützbalken oder auch Stichbalken bediente. Alle drei abgängliche Formen, sowie auch die ‘seitenschiff-echten’ Stützpfeiler können in dem 94

John Crook: Bishops and base crucks: fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry

Siebenlist, V 1980. In ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 3 (by J. Fletcher): A list of tree-ring dates for building timber in Southern England and Wales’, Vernacular Arch, 11, 34 Smith, J T 1955. ‘Medieval aisled halls and their derivatives’, Archaeol J, 112, 76–94 Smith, J T 1958. ‘Medieval roofs: a classification’, Archaeol J, 115, 111–49 Smith J T 1975. ‘Cruck distribution: an interpretation of some recent maps’, Vernacular Arch, 6, 3–18 Smith J T 1981. ‘The problems of cruck construction and the evidence of distribution maps’, in Alcock (ed) Thornes, R and Fradgley, N 1988. ‘Upton Court, Slough: an early fourteenth-century open hall’, Archaeol J, 145, 211–21 Tyers, I and Hibberd, H 1993. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 53: Tree-ring dates from Museum of London Archaeology Service’, Vernacular Arch, 24, 50– 54 Walker, J 1987. ‘Wynter’s Armourie: a base-cruck hall in Essex and its significance’, Vernacular Arch, 18, 25–33 Werrell, J S 1984. ‘The Old Irish Menswear Building’, Loughborough and District Arch Soc Bull, 2.3 (Winter 1984), 7–25 Williams, E H D and Gilson, R G 1981. ‘Base crucks in Somerset (III) and allied roof forms’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History, 125, 45–66

Fowler, R C (ed.) (1929–49). Feet of Fines for Essex, vol. iii Gibb, J H P 1984. ‘Hall House, Newland. A 14th-century timber-framed hall in Sherborne’, Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc, 106, 23–32 Groves, C and Hillam, J 1994. ‘Tree-ring dates, List 55: Tree-ring dates from Sheffield University’, Vernacular Arch, 25, 25–7 Haddon-Reece, D and Miles, D H 1992. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 43: Tree-ring dates’, Vernacular Arch, 23, 48–51 Hillam, J and Fletcher, J 1983. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 11 (by J Fletcher): Tree-ring dates for buildings with oak timber’, Vernacular Arch, 14, 61–2, at 62 Howard, R, Laxton, R R, Litton, C D and Simpson, W G 1988. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 27: Nottingham University tree-ring dating laboratory results’, Vernacular Arch, 19, 46–7 Laxton, R R, Litton, C D and Simpson, W G 1984. ‘Treering dates, List 12: Tree-ring dates for buildings in Eastern and Midland England; Nottingham University tree-ring dating laboratory results’, Vernacular Arch, 15, 65–8 Lewis, E, Roberts, E and Roberts, K 1988. Medieval Hall Houses of the Winchester Area ‘Long Crendon Manor’, 1954. The Antique Collector, 25 (Feb 1954) 2–10 Martin, D 1974. ‘Chateaubriand, Burwash’, Sussex Archaeol Coll, 112, 21–9 Meeson, R 1996. ‘Time and place: medieval carpentry in Staffordshire’, Vernacular Architecture, 27, 10– 24 Mercer, E 1996. ‘Cruck distribution: a social explanation’, Vernacular Arch, 27, 1–2 Miles, D H and Haddon-Reece, D 1996. ‘Tree-Ring Dates, List 72: Hampshire Dendrochronology Project, Phase Two’, Vernacular Arch, 27, 97–102. Morant, P 1978. The History and Antiquities of . . . Essex, 2 vols (London, 1763–8, reprinted Essex County Library) Pearson, S 1994. The Medieval Houses of Kent: An Historical Analysis Portman, D 1966. Exeter Houses, 1400–1700 Roberts, E 1987. ‘Medieval New Alresford revisited’, Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc, 43, 255–7 Roberts, E with contributions by Crook, J. and Miles, D. W. H. 1993. ‘A base-cruck house at Froxfield’, Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc., 49, 175–93 Roberts, E with contribution by Clark, K., 1998. ‘The rediscovery of two major monastic buildings at Wherwell’, Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc (Hampshire Studies) 53, 137–53 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Essex, i (HMSO, 1916), 351–3 Sandall, K 1986. ‘Aisled halls in England and Wales’, Vernacular Arch, 17, 21–35

95

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 Winchester. The Pilgrims’ Hall complex. From left to right : The Pilgrims’ Hall (three bays, with hammer beams) ; the probable guest-master’s hall (two bays, central base-cruck truss) ; single service bay, divided from the latter by a true aisled truss with vertical boarding. The roof was all erected in one constructional phase of c 1308 John Crook

Figure 2 The Pilgrims’ Hall, facing north, showing raised-aisle truss over the end wall, and one of the two hammer-beam trusses John Crook

96

John Crook: Bishops and base crucks: fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry

Figure 3 A base-cruck hall. Reconstruction sketch of Marwell Hall (Hampshire), dated to c 1316, with four base-cruck trusses John Crook

97

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 4 Methods of articulating the base-cruck blade, the arcade plate, and the tie-beam : (a) using a jowl ; (b) using a short spandrel post John Crook

98

John Crook: Bishops and base crucks: fourteenth-century timber halls in England and their carpentry

Figure 5 Detail of the base cruck/ tie-beam assembly in the Pilgrims’ Hall complex. (1) arcade plate ; (2) cornice plate ; (3) tie beam ; (4) short spandrel post ; (5) arch brace ; (6) base-cruck blade John Crook

99

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 6 Dartington Hall, Devon. Entrance block, showing two base-cruck trusses of the roof dated to the early fourteenth century John Crook

Figure 7 ‘Tudor Tavern’, Taunton. A base-cruck hall dated to 1385–95 John Crook

100

Seigneurial hierarchy and medieval buildings in Westmorland by

Beryl Lott

For much of the pre-Norman period and after Westmorland was a border area. Its buildings have been studied, in consequence, as an offshoot of military architecture, and their layout and design have been discussed in terms of response to Scottish raiding.1 In fact Westmorland itself is only rarely mentioned in the medieval and early modern accounts of border wars and raiding, most of which took place within a zone no more than twenty miles from the border, to the north of the northern limits of the county.2 The present paper, which summarizes the results of a doctoral thesis,3 is an attempt to provide an alternative picture. It outlines the landscape history and the ownership of estates in order to explain the variations in building styles which are apparent in the surviving structures. These buildings consist of two main groups (Figure 2): a small group of baronial castles, with remains from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, and including extensive later rebuildings; and a much larger group of smaller buildings which date from the mid fourteenth to the early part of the sixteenth century. Over three quarters of the latter were of manorial status.4

Norman overlordship was imposed on the area. By 1086 a division between north and south Westmorland is suggested by the inclusion of the southern portion only in the Domesday survey, but this may have been only a temporary situation. Tostig, appointed as overlord of the southern half of the area, had been ejected twenty years before, and the stated location of his estates at the time of Domesday may not reflect the current situation on the ground.7 The other estate holders, Torfin, a Yorkshire lord, and Gillemichael, who also held land across the northern border, both retained control in the twelfth century and the lack of details in the account suggests that tax in the region was not easily exacted. The northern valley was not included in the survey suggesting that in 1086 it was not considered part of land held by the English crown. By 1092 Carlisle, to the north, had been colonised by the Normans, but the pattern of small baronies granted out from there (to Normans close to Carlisle and to local lords farther away) stopped at the Westmorland boundary. This implies that Carlisle may have been a Norman island in an alien country and that Westmorland was still independently ruled. However, jurisdiction was granted in two parts, the north to Ranulf de Meschin, member of a cadet branch of his family, and the south to Ivo de Taillebois, a steward of Rufus; neither was resident nor in the league of great lords. It may even have been considered that it would be no great loss if they failed to hold them, and the northern kingdom was slow to accede to the new situation : after all, Scottish claims to land as far as the Stainmore Pass (the border between Westmorland and Yorkshire) continued to be urged until 1237. There seems to have been little Norman influence until the late twelfth century, and even then it appears that there were two tiers of landholding, nominal Norman overlordship and actual native lordship. Native leaders could not be replaced because their local following was too strong.8 Norman overlordship in the southern valley seems to have been gradually accepted, being strengthened by marriage to native heiresses. In the northern valley it was probably tolerated by an accident of personality : from the mid twelfth century this area was in the hands of Hugh de Morville, who happened to be a confidante of King David of Scotland, and traditionally north Westmorland had been allied with the north. David had been brought up in the English Norman court and it was seemingly through him that Norman control was extended to this area. Visibility of power in the landscape was an important part of eleventh- and twelfth-century lordship,

THE LAND AND ITS LANDLORDS To minimize the extent of Scottish warfare in Westmorland is not to deny that from time to time the area lay between opposing powers. If the identification of the Lyuyuenyd of Taliesin with the Lyvennet valley on a tributary of the river Eden is correct the northern part of Westmorland was under the control of Rheged c AD 600 and may have served as the base from which the English at Catraeth (Catterick) were attacked.5 In 927 Eamont Bridge, on the north Westmorland border, was the location for the English king to receive pledges from Welsh and Scottish kings suggesting that this was then the English border. By the mid tenth century Westmorland seems to have been considered as part of an independent northern community of Scots, Northumbrians and Strathclyde Welsh and was not regarded as English. However, its ruling family had died out, and overlordship was contested among the others; the fact that none wished to retain it, but saw it as a pawn in breaking the power of the others suggests that overlordship of the area was weak and that the region was strongly independent, its rule being largely in the hands of local lords.6 This was essentially still the situation when 1

Lott 1995. For discussion of this point, see l62 ff. and cf Emery 1996, 163–70. 2 Dixon 1976, 55–62. 3 Lott 1995. 4 Lott 1995. For discussion of this point, see l56–9. 5 Higham 1986, 253, 266, Smith 1967, xxxv, 10. 6 Illustrated by the Gospatric writ when Gospatric son of Earl Ughtred confirmed land to Thorfinn who was an underlord of Siward of Yorkshire, the fact that he asked no permission and was geldfree, as

were other local landholders, and that he extended these same privileges to Thorfinn suggests rule was by a locally-dominated powerbase of landholders. See Harmer 1952, 419–24. 7 Kapelle 1979, 86–101. 8 For discussion Kapelle 1979, 86–101; Lott 1995, 42–5, 52–7, 69–73.

101

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

providing both a reminder of who was in charge and a focus for its administration. Motte sites are generally accepted as the earliest physical representations of Norman control, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that they were also adopted as a symbol of control by native lords who acted as sub-tenants in these northern borderlands. The distribution of mottes is remarkably sparse compared with other areas and probably reflects the early lack of overlords’ control, referred to in the preceeding section (Figure 3). It is notable that mottes were erected at places which were already important foci, and which were members of different Domesday estates. Appleby is the only motte site in the northern valley, and it was also the only place where de Meschin actually held any demesne land,9 but it was held by a native constable in 1175.10 Kendal (Kirkby), administrative centre for the huge (Gillemichael) estate of Stercaland at Domesday, though nominally held originally by Ivo de Taillebois and later by William de Lancaster, was the probable base of Orm son of Ketel, and both issued local land charters in the twelfth century.11 Kirkby Lonsdale, another Kirkby of Domesday, has similar features to Appleby and Kendal, and was later held as a sub-tenantry of the Kendal estate by hereditary local lords.12 Tebay is less well-documented than the others, but twelfth-century land charters suggest that this too was sub-tenanted locally and was held in duality with the overlords of Appleby.13 The one thing which links these sites is that in the mid twelfth century they all paid dues to, or were held by, de Morville, overlord of Appleby, suggesting locally significant centres, with mottes, held by local lords, under one man’s overlordship. It is evident that the distribution of the remains of baronial castles reflect Norman rather than native overlordship of the two valleys. It will be seen from the following that they were not part of a strategic line of defence as has been sometimes suggested.14 They fall more into line with Strickland’s more recent observations that northern castles sites had little military significance and were erected over a longer timescale.15 Neither Kendal nor Appleby were military fiefs until the late twelfth century. The only sites with evidence of early castles are Appleby and Brough, both in the northern valley. Appleby was the only site to utilize a former motte, being the site of de Meschin’s castle in 1088,16 it continued as the administrative centre of the valley.17 It is superficially similar to the castle at Brough, but its stonework is more carefully built with wide, mortared, squared sandstone reminiscent of earlier Norman work, while Brough, made from roughly coursed stone, is more reminiscent of the castles of Henry II in the north and can be compared with

Scarborough and Peveril. It is quite likely that the earliest building at Brough was erected by de Morville as a sign to those crossing the Stainmore Pass that they were now entering his land.18 By 1160 his son was holding Brough for the English crown and in 1171–2, £224 went to Brough from the king,19 suggesting a building project large enough to encompass the existing donjon (Figure 4). There was no mention of Appleby and it is a possibility that the two castles were held by different generations with different persuasions; the elder with Scottish sympathies at Appleby and the younger paying homage to Henry II at Brough. Certainly there was an oddity that, in 1174 when the valley was raided by William the Lion, Appleby was handed over immediately with fines later imposed for succouring the enemy,20 whilst the storming of a loyal garrison at Brough was recorded by Fantosme.21 The baronial castles at Brougham, Pendragon and Kendal do not seem to have existed until the beginning of the thirteenth century. The hereditary sheriffdom of the northern valley, centred on Appleby, was confirmed in 1203 to Robert de Vipont son of the Morville heiress.22 The nature of this is important because it was not truly feudal. He was granted the services only of those tenants who did not hold by military service; as most of Appleby at that time was held by cornage and drengage which were considered as military tenure, his actual holding was in consequence an extremely limited demesne. It was extended by grants of royal forest land and the acquisition of several small cornage/drengage estates around Brougham to create a more compact holding.23 It was on these old forest lands that he erected the castles of Brougham and Mallerstang (Pendragon) at the boundaries of his jurisdictional area. His appointment was probably entirely political, since not only was he a magnate and close confidante of the king, but he and de Balliol at Barnard Castle were the only two northern barons to support the king in the following years, and his castles signified not only the entry to his land but his affiliations. The huge donjon at Brougham was significantly on his boundary, the boundary of Westmorland and on what had been a disputed English boundary. It was an unmistakable message of authority to all northern visitors. The tower was soon modified and extended by the attachment of a newly fashionable first-floor hall, which were at this time only being erected by those at the very top of the social hierarchy. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the tower at Brougham emphasised regal authority, whilst more public or semi-public functions might be conducted in the new hall of the sheriffdom holder. By Robert’s death in 1228 each estate he held personally in the barony had an impressive stone tower. In addition his residence at Brougham and his judicial centre at Appleby probably both

9

Prescott 1897, no 3. Pipe Rolls, 22 Henry II, 119. Farrer and Curwen 1923, vii–xiii, and passim, cf Sanders 1960, 56–7. 12 Farrer 1923, ii, 305–6. 13 Ragg 1908, 294–5; Lott 1995, 76. 14 Ferguson 1894, 67–8. 15 Strickland 1990, 177–98. 16 Prescott 1897, no 3. 17 According to the Pipe Rolls for 1130–31, the castle was in English hands (Hunter 1833, 143). 10 11

18

Excavations recorded in TCWAAS, 1927, 224–7. Pipe Rolls 18 Hen II, 55; 19 Hen II, 2. The Brough entries from 7 Hen II to 21 Hen II are entered under Yorkshire: cf. Lott 1995, 83–4. 20 Pipe Rolls, 22 Henry II, 119. 21 Johnston 1981, sections 150–6; 109–13. 22 Cumbria Record Office, Carlisle, DHoth/10, 2, cf Sanders 1960, 103–4 and Holt 1961, passim for Robert’s career. 23 For details see Lott 1995, 85–7. 19

102

Beryl Lott: Seigneurial hierarchy and medieval buildings in Westmorland

had first-floor halls. Although in a defensible position these halls were not fortified and perhaps should be seen in the same light as other thirteenth-century houses of northern lords.24 It was the shape of this outline, high tower and adjacent hall and the dominium which it represented which was portrayed not only to the visitor, but to the local lords who formed the next layer of the seigneurial hierarchy. There is little evidence of building for the rest of the century, but this is to be expected because the barony was subject to minority and absentee lordship until c 1300.25 It is notable that when the Cliffords came into effective power in the region not only did they at once start building but also that the old symbolism of tower and adjacent hall remained strong.26 At Brougham a new firstfloor hall was flanked by a three-storey service tower and the existing donjon, with the addition of an impressive tower gateway; at Brough was a similar assemblage of hall sandwiched by solar tower and gatetower, and at Appleby, too, there was a first floor hall flanked by two threestoreyed towers.27 The same pattern occurred at Kendal, where a castle is mentioned in 1216, though very little of the surviving fragments are dateable. There was certainly a first-floor hall flanked by a three-storey solar tower and the gateway, and there is also what appears at first glance to be the remains of a donjon, but it is oddly sited and seventeenth-century drawings show that it had more in common with the later fifteenth-century solar blocks than twelfth-century donjons. It is conceivable that fitz Reinfrid emphasized his acquisition of military tenure here much as Robert de Vipont at Brougham: by constructing his new residential castle, not on the site of the older motte, which here was probably abandoned, but on a new site across the river. Effective control is an important part of local politics and in both baronies long periods of absentee overlords fostered the existing local independence and put effective power into the hands of the local manorial landlords, who were often appointed as stewards or other officers of the baronial estates. However, manorial buildings of a type substantial enough to survive do not appear until the mid fourteenth century, with growing numbers in the following years and throughout the fifteenth century. For the most part the manors on which fourteenth-century buildings are found can be demonstrated to have been held by locally important Figures. Thus some of the earliest remains found in manorial buildings in the Appleby barony are in the solar at Asby Rectory (Figure 5). The manor here was owned by one of only three knights of the de Clifford barony; but he did not erect the building. This was done by the de Moriceby family who acquired the manor by marriage at a time when they were expanding their assets. This same

phenomenon is seen many times in both baronies. At Askham the manor of another Clifford knight, de Hellbeck, was acquired by the rising influential Sandford family who were responsible for the huge solar tower there. At Howgill, the former manor of the Earl of Dunbar, the earliest extant buildings were erected after acquisition by the rising de Lancaster family. In the Kendal barony the de Bethum family had been knights of the barony during the thirteenth century, but it is not until the mid fourteenth century when Ralph de Bethum was steward and guardian of part of the barony that there are substantial surviving remains (Figure 6). This suggests that knightly estates were important acquisitions for aspiring lords, and that heiresses of knightly estates were much sought after. HALLS AND TOWERS So what are the majority of the buildings? If we concentrate on plan and features, forty-nine percent of buildings below baronial level had plans which incorporated two-storey wings and attached halls, while fifty one percent incorporated three-storey wings and attached halls. Both types were erected from late in the fourteenth century to the early sixteenth century. Inevitably the three-storey wings are described as towers. However, these buildings are not the free-standing towers we have been led to expect by the existing literature on the subject. Apart from early castle donjons only one free-standing tower has been identified in the county; this, at Arnside, is in fact quite different from the others, and is best seen as a hunting lodge of c 1500.28 This site apart, most of the medieval manorial buildings are examples of the classic ‘H-plan’ house. But local variations, often including threestorey wings either as solar, service-wing or both, are common. Often, as at Asby and Clifton, there is evidence that the attached hall was originally of timber; sometimes, as at Beetham, Heversham and Howgill it was of stone. It is perhaps this mixed tradition of building material which has fostered the idea of a free-standing tower, where the solar has been of three storeys and of substantial stone, whereas the hall has been of easily demolished timber. The distributions of these two styles of building are interesting. Although both types existed across the whole county, the survival of those with two storey elements was more limited, the majority being in the Kendal barony. The distribution is even more marked if chronology is considered, as those two storey buildings that do exist in the north, although numerically the smallest group, are the earliest buildings; the later, fifteenth-century buildings were being built with three-storey elements as solars. In the south the earliest buildings incorporate threestorey solars, and in the later period both two- and threestorey solars were being erected. This is at odds with the idea that Scottish raids resulted in a profusion of towers. If we look at the recorded dates of Scottish raids and the dates of identifiable buildings, there are considerable problems (Figure 7). Most

24

Dixon 1992. Lott 1995, 101, 115. 26 Lott 1995, 101. 27 Plans and archaeological evidence are outlined in Lott 1995, 129–32 and presented in Chapters 3 and 4. A Buck drawing of 1739 shows one tower still intact. 25

28

103

Lott, 1995, App 7, cf Emery 1996, 183–4.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

of these raids did not reach as far as Westmorland, some only went as far as Carlisle and others to Penrith just north of the Westmorland border. Only four raids between 1314– 20 (and one in 1380) can certainly be identified as entering the county. Of these only one is recorded as reaching the south of the county. Thus an interpretation of stone buildings as a response to raids cannot be sustained on the available Figureures. Not only is there very little overlap, but, excluding the baronial castles, in the area nearer to Scotland the earliest buildings (and closest in time to the raids) are unfortified timber halls with typical two-storey solar wings found elsewhere. The only three-storey wing which overlaps with the recorded raiding period is at Beetham, one of the most southerly manors in the county. Here, shortly after, houses were erected comprising twostorey wings attached to ground-floor halls. There is no evidence that any of these were fortified at this time in any way, either by architectural features or even by surrounding walls or moats. If we wish to accept height alone as a defensive feature it is odd that the only survival of such a substantial feature, closest in period to documented raiding, is at the southern extremity of the county at the furthest possible distance from any raids. It seems, indeed, that some other explanation is needed for their presence. If the local standing and status is considered, the more impressive variations make sense. First-floor halls in Northern England seem to occur at the upper end of the social hierarchy as, for example, at Markenfield and Aydon.29 This is also the case in Westmorland. All the baronial castle sites have mid fourteenth-century first-floor halls. Only a few of the manorial houses have traces of them. Of these, Howgill belonged to John de Lancaster of the king’s household, whose patron was de Vere, confidante of the king; Burneside, in the Kendal barony, also had an owner with royal links, Henry de Bellingham was king’s receiver for the crown portion of the barony (Figure 8). If the tenurial history of the two baronies are considered separately, the status of those erecting substantial houses begins to make sense. In Kendal, the barony was divided and almost all parts fell to absentee landlords. It was stewards of these and their officials who were erecting the buildings with towers. Burneside has already been mentioned. Here, however, the first-floor hall belonged to a second phase which included a substantial solar tower; the first phase was also substantial, but with solar tower and hall at ground level. This was a product of another Bellingham who was both knight and steward of de Percy’s estates in the county. Skelsmergh was built by the steward to the Parr portion of the barony, as was Sizergh whose owner was also king’s forester. Kentmere belonged to the steward of the Bedord portion (Figure 9). In the Appleby barony, Newbiggin was built by John de Crackenthorpe, who effectively controlled the barony 29

during the minority of its heir, as well as being steward to his mother’s estates. In some cases this hierarchy can be traced to another level. In the Kendal barony there are some crudely built solar wings which give the impression of towers, but which actually only have two storeys; Godmund was a lesser official for Strickland of Sizergh, but ultimately under the patronage of the Parr portion of the barony. Phillipson, who built Hollin How right at the end of the period was a different category; all the previous builders had been local manorial gentry, but he had acquired his wealth through trade and married into a gentry family. He was aspiring to a social position and building a house of a type which had previously only been built locally by those already in that position. If the houses with two-storeyed wings in the Kendal barony are considered, other patronage links can be seen to exist; Preston Patrick (Figure 10) and Selside, both of only two storeys, were built by attorneys of William de Wyndesore of Grayrigg. In contrast, Levens and Beetham, both with towers, were built by his knightly followers: all supported him in his military endeavours in Ireland,30 but equally all held baronial positions. Similar patronage links can be traced in the Appleby barony. Here they were involved more with the northern Neville/Percy feud, but once again building was exclusive to manorial gentry. Thus Askham and Lammerside were built, respectively, by the de Sandford and de Warcop retainers of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury. De Clibburn was in turn a retainer of Sandford’.31 A comparative hierarchy in buildings can be seen here. Salisbury and his son Warwick had their extensive castle at Raby in Durham with firstfloor hall and solar tower,32 de Sandford had his large solar tower at Askham, probably with ground-floor hall and stone two-storey service wing and Clibburn had yet a smaller solar tower at Cliburn. These patronage links were strong, not only because of local feuding, but because of the history of these groups following military service together, particularly in Scottish garrisons. It was probably the military links which provided the income sufficient to build this type of house. Whilst the southern barony had patronage links with English lords, they fought mainly for English lords abroad, in Ireland, in France and in Wales, and those with towers in the south were all in high positions of seigneurial authority. In the northem barony all the military service was gained on the northern border, only occasionally in France, and almost exclusively their links were with northern magnates. It seems probable that the predominance of towers in the northern barony may have its roots in the types of buildings with towers being erected by northern magnates; those in the southern barony had closer affiliations with England and the south, and houses similar to those elsewhere in England were the predominant type.

Markenfield c 1310 (North Yorkshire), was a manorial family home but was erected by a de Markenfield who was Treasurer of England; Aydon c 1295 (Northumberland) was erected by a wealthy merchant buying himself half a large barony (Dixon 1988).

30

Cal Pat Rolls 1362, 217; Cal Pat Rolls 1399, 519. Ragg 1921; 1928, 195–6 ; Jones and Walker 1994, nos. 144, 149, 150. 32 Hislop 1992, 91–7. 31

104

Beryl Lott: Seigneurial hierarchy and medieval buildings in Westmorland

Anwälten und den denjenigen die durch den Handel reich geworden sind, feststellen kann.

ABSTRACT This paper discusses the development of castles and manor houses in the former county of Westmorland. A small number of baronial castles represents the colonizing of the area after the Norman conquest, particularly on the line of the ancient access road from the Yorkshire uplands towards Carlisle and the Scottish border. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries manorial centres with halls and sometimes towers were constructed. The distribution pattern suggests that these apparent fortifications were not the result of the Scottish wars, but were linked to the aspirations of the landlords and tenants who built them, showing a correspondence between the building of towers by knightly tenants and of two-storeyed solar blocks by others, including attorneys and those wealthy through trade. Links are also found between the patronage groups of the greater lords, and it is suggested that the designs of the buildings of these groups owe their detail to fashions in other parts of England.

Bibliography Barrow, G W S 1969. ‘Northern English Society in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries’, Northern History, 4, 1–28 Blair, J 1993. ‘Hall and chamber: English domestic planning 1000–1250’, in Meirion-Jones, G I, and Jones, M C E eds, 1993. Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France. Proceedings of the Colloquium held on 24 November 1990. London: Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers, No. 15, 1–21 Curwen, J F 1913. Castles and fortified towers of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire beyond the Sands, Kendal. Dixon, P W 1976. Fortified Houses on the Anglo-Scottish Border : a study of the domestic architecture of the upland area in its social and economic context, 1485–1625. Unpublished Oxford D Phil thesis Dixon, P W 1988. Aydon Castle, London Dixon, P W 1992. ‘From hall to tower: the change in seigneurial houses on the Anglo-Scottish Border after c 1250’, in Coss, P R, ed, Thirteenth-century England, IV, 85–107 Emery, A 1996. Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales 1300–1500, vol 1, Northern England Farrer, W and Curwen J F 1923. Records relating to the Barony of Kendale, 3 vols, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq and Archaeol Soc, Record Series, IV – VI Ferguson, R S 1894. A History of Westmorland, London Harmer, F E, ed, 1952. Anglo-Saxon Writs, Manchester Higham, N 1986. The Northern Counties to AD 1000, London Hislop, M 1992. The castle of Ralph, fourth baron Neville, at Raby, Archaeol Aeliana, 5 ser, xx, 91–7 Holt, J C 1961. The Northerners, Oxford Hunter, J 1833. Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii vel Magnum Rotulum Pipae de anno 31° Henrici 1, London Hunter, J et al. 1844. The Great Rolls of the Pipe for the Second, Third and Fourth Years of the Reign of King Henry the Second, 1155–1158 [and continuations for subsequent years by the Pipe Roll Society, 1884–present] Johnston, R C, ed. 1981. Jordan Fantosme’s Chronicle, Oxford Jones, M and Walker S 1994. ‘Private Indentures for Life Service in Peace and War 1278–1476’, Camden Miscellany, xxxii [Royal Historical Society, Camden Fifth Series, vol 3], 1–190 Kapelle, W E 1979. The Norman Conquest of the North, London Lott, B P 1992. An evaluation of Faulkner’s domestic planning typology and its application to buildings

RÉSUMÉ Cet article étudie le développement des châteaux forts et manoirs dans l’ancien comté du Westmorland. Un petit nombre de châteaux ‘seigneuriaux’ témoignent de la colonisation de la région après la Conquête normande, particulièrement le long de l’ancienne route menant des terres élevées du Yorkshire vers Carlisle et la frontière écossaise. Aux XIIe et XIVe siècle, on construisit des centres manoriaux avec des salles et parfois des tours. Le plan de distribution suggère que ces fortifications apparentes ne furent pas la conséquence des guerres écossaises, mais étaient liées aux aspirations des seigneurs propriétaires et des tenants qui les édifièrent, montrant une correspondance entre la construction de tours par des tenants nobles et celle de ‘blocs chambres à étage’ par d’autres, y compris par des gens de justice et de riches marchands. Nous avons aussi trouvé des relations entre les groupes de patronage des grands seigneurs et nous supposons que le programme de ces groupes de bâtiments doit son inspiration aux modes en vigueur dans d’autres régions d’Angleterre. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Dieser Artikel diskutiert die Entwicklung von Burgen und Herrenhäusern des ehemaligen county von Westmorland. Eine kleine Anzahl von Baronenburgen repräsentiert die Kolonisierung dieser Umgebung nach der normannischen Eroberung, besonders entlang der alten Zufahrtsstrasse von den Yorkshire Hochländern Richtung Carlisle und der schottischen Grenze. Wahrend des 13. Jh. und 14. Jh. wurden gutshofartige Bauten mit Sälen und manchmal auch Türmen hergestellt. Die Verbreitung dieser Bautypen schlagt vor, dass diese Befestigungen nicht ein Resultat der schottischen Kriege war, sondern eher auf die Streben der Mieter und Vermieter die diese Gebäude hergestellt haben, zurückgeht, indem man eine Verbindung zwischen dem Bau von Türmen der ritterlichen Mietern, und von zweistöckigen Einzelkammern der anderen, inklusiv

105

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

in the north-east Midlands. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Nottingham Lott, B P 1995. Medieval buildings in Westmorland. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham Pipe Rolls, see Hunter, above Prescott, J E 1897. ‘The Register of the Priory of Wetherhal’, Trans Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, Record Series, 1 Ragg, F W 1908. ‘The feoffees of the Cliffords, from 1283–1482’, Trans Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, NS, VIII, 253– 330 Ragg, F W 1921. ‘Helton Flechan, Askham and Sandford of Askham’, Trans Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, NS, XXI, 174–233 Ragg, F W 1923. ‘De Threlkeld’, Trans Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, NS, XXIII, 154–204 Ragg, F W 1928. ‘Cliburn Hervey and Cliburn Tailbois; Part II’, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Aantiq Archaeol Soc, NS, XXV111, 179–271 Sanders, I 1960. English Baronies. A Study of their Origin and Descent 1086–1327, Oxford Smith, A H 1962. The Place-names of Westmorland, English Place-Name Soc, XLIII Strickland, M 1990. ‘Securing the North: invasion and the strategy of defence in twelfth-century AngloScandinavian warfare’, Anglo-Norman Studies, XII, 177–98 Taylor, M W 1892. The old manorial halls of Westmorland and Cumberland, Trans Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, Extra Ser. VIII. Tuck, J A 1986. ‘The emergence of a northern nobility 1250–1400’, Northern History, XXII, 1–17 Turner, J and Parker, A H 1851. An account of domestic architecture in the Middle Ages, 4 vols., Oxford

106

Beryl Lott: Seigneurial hierarchy and medieval buildings in Westmorland

Figure 1 Location map of the Westmorland region

Figure 2 Distribution of castles and manorial sites

107

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 3 Distribution of mottes

Figure 4 Brough: the donjon of the later twelfth century

108

Beryl Lott: Seigneurial hierarchy and medieval buildings in Westmorland

Figure 5 Two-storeyed solar at Asby Rectory

Figure 6 Three-storeyed solar of the fourteenth or fifteenth century at Beetham

109

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 7 Frequency of raiding and of building construction

Figure 8 Burneside in the Kendal barony

110

Beryl Lott: Seigneurial hierarchy and medieval buildings in Westmorland

Figure 9 Kentmere

Figure 10 Preston Patrick

111

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

112

Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands by

John McCormack

The Channel Islands are rich in the surviving number of old houses.1 In the twenty five square miles of Guernsey there remain some 1,100 domestic buildings more than 200 years old,2 and in Jersey’s forty square miles, at least as many. Of these, a substantial number are medieval; others can be shown to have replaced earlier structures in post-medieval times. No houses are really large, but the biggest are the oldest. Both density of settlement and diminishing size of surviving domestic buildings reflect the size and organization of land holdings, especially after the eleventh-century creation of fiefs by the Norman dukes, though settlement patterns and some enclosures are far earlier. Guernsey, in AD 1020, was divided between the Vicomte du Bessin and the Vicomte du Cotentin,3 who quickly set about dividing their new territories between existing tenants on the French mainland. They, in turn, would have managed them from afar, except for occasional visits, preferring to live on their larger French estates. To run these acquisitions they seen to have appointed local men who actually lived on island fiefs, farmed the land and looked after the houses. But it is reasonable to suppose that seigneurial buildings reflecting the status of the owner could be built, calling not only upon local resources but also those of the French seigneur. Thus, when William the Conqueror’s uncle, Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen, was banished to Guernsey in 1055,4 it would have been necessary, even in disgrace, for a dwelling of suitable quality to have been chosen for his reception, either on the minute Fief Fortescu, or on a neighbouring site. Like many men with larger estates in mainland Normandy,5 the Fortescues sided with Philip Augustus in 1204, forfeiting their island holding to King John, though the fief goes by their name to the present day. This fief was certainly being run by the Guille family at the end of the thirteenth century and for a further five hundred years 6 and the implication is that they were there long before, since Anne Guille is said to have married 1

2 3 4

5

6

Archbishop Mauger while he was in Guernsey. They were almost certainly stewards of the Fortescues, left in possession in 1204 lest political fortunes should enable their masters to regain their old inheritance. Their influence appears to have been sufficient to turn the course of events to their own advantage. This example shows with what ingenuity islanders made the most of their situation in the changing fortunes of the Angevin Empire, and how they could legitimately claim to have held privileges beyond their status in the inquisitions of Edward III, ultimately gaining virtual independence. After 1204, fiefs in the hands of French monasteries were retained by them, only being confiscated by the Crown in 1414. But secular lords had to choose where their allegiance lay, most electing to lose their island holdings in favour of older patrimonies in mainland Normandy.7 Those who stayed in Jersey and Guernsey now became heads of island hierarchies that set local fashions. And when escheated fiefs were granted anew by the King, they were to men with local connections, who, for instance, were for the time being Wardens of the Isles. Thus in Jersey, Drogo de Barentin, who was Seneschal of Gascony as well as Warden of the Isles (1240–52), was granted the Fief de Rozel, where his descendants all lived;8 his house has vanished, but was almost certainly built on a lavish scale, as its surviving chapel resembles the nave of a large parish church. Elsewhere, fiefs were split up, and new ones created in former marginal land. So intricate did this sub-infeudation become that the complete patchwork of holdings cannot properly be traced, though over 260 such holdings have been recorded in Jersey.9 These were, by the end of the thirteenth century, effectively in the hands of islanders themselves who formed a class of petits seigneurs. Domestic architecture, therefore, evolved within a French context, Anglo-Norman at first, but eventually coming to reflect the many influences that made the islands important politically and commercially in later medieval times. Merchants involved with the lucrative Bordeaux wine trade could bring back stone from areas far away to ornament their arches; crusaders and pilgrims returned from the Near East with knowledge of pointed stone vaults,10 which they not only added to local churches but

Study of the vernacular architecture of the Channel Islands began relatively late compared to the development of the subject in the British Isles. Among the earlier studies are those published in the Quart Rev Guernsey Soc and in the Annual Bull Soc Jersiaise, to which journals readers are directed. Pioneering authors include E B Moullin and T F Priaulx for Guernsey, and Joan Stevens for Jersey. McCormack 1980, 1–403. Ewen 1961, 173–209. Gallia Christiana, tome XI : de provincia rotomagensi, Paris 1759, Archiepiscopi rotomagenses, XLIV Malgerius, colonnes 29–30; the author is grateful to Madame E . Lescroart for this reference. Clermont 1880, 322–56. Much help in tracing the Fortescues was given by Mr Rus Fortescue, of Cronilla, New South Wales, and by Lady Margaret Fortescue, of Castle Hill, Devon. Information supplied by Mr G Guille of the Family History Section, Société Guernesiaise.

7 8 9 10

113

Ewen 1961. Bisson 1996, 537. Stevens 1977, endpaper. The hall of Mont Orgeuil Castle, post-1204, has been investigated by Dr Warwick Rodwell; it was at some later period given a stone vault, replacing a timber roof. This seems also to have been the pattern in local churches, where most stone vaults can be shown to be a

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

their private chapels and castle halls, replacing wooden roofs. Most importantly, the separate halls and chamberblocks of all twelfth- and thirteenth-century dwellings coalesced by the late fourteenth century into house-types that determined the pattern of housing for the next four hundred years. Houses might be of two- or three-cell in plan, the three-cell plan falling out of favour after c 1500. In detail such houses differed noticeably between Guernsey and Jersey, each island becoming by c 1450 what might be termed a distinct ‘vernacular unit’. The earliest structures are not only the largest, but those that fall most easily into mainstream patterns in France and England. Some may predate the political separation of the islands from mainland Normandy in 1204: many surviving fragments are impossible to date. One can only say that walling clearly altered in the fourteenth century may then already have been some 200 years old. Of examples of pre-1300 structures there are the castle hall and an undercroft said to have been a chapel at Mont Orgeuil;11 undercrofts of chamber-blocks at Samarès Manor12 and St Ouen’s Manor (Figure 1), a two-storey chamber-block at Longueville Manor (Figure 2) and the Rozel Manor chapel, all in Jersey.13 In Guernsey there survives the undercroft of a chamber-block, attached by a pentice wall to fragmentary remains of a hall at the Fortescues’ old house at Saints Farm; a complete chamberblock at Maison de Haut, Pleinheaume (Figure 3); and substantial parts of the de Cheney hall and chamber-block at Les Annevilles Manor, c 1248.14 All of these are truly seigneurial – except for the Maison de Haut, of the history of which we know nothing – in the sense that they were the chief houses of recognizable fiefs, in most cases the largest or most important in the islands. Where evidence of both halls and chambers survives, either of this date or in later rebuilds, these two elements are always at right-angles to each other. Sometimes they are contiguous, with access between, as at Les Annevilles; more frequently they are freestanding, as St Ouen’s and Longueville. At Samarès, there may have been internal access at chamber level, but although the walls survive – their thickness may be measured – they are now hidden beneath later plaster within a nineteenth-century house; they may, or may not, reflect the position of a hall contemporary with the chamber. If so, it was probably a ground-floor hall, as the undercroft of the chamber-block has only one original lateral doorway, such as to stand clear of any adjoining structure.

This undercroft at Samarès is of high quality, with three double bays of groined vaults, supported on two pillars with moulded capitals and bases. One pillar is cylindrical, one octagonal, and bases are of a design favoured for this position, resembling the profiles of capitals;15 above, the structure of the vaulting is original, complete with marks of shuttering boards.16 Small windows now pierce each bay on two sides; whilst none is original in its present form, some or all may occupy the positions of earlier openings, though it not usual to have five lights for three bays. The undercrofts at Mont Orgeuil are similar, though that below the hall is of four double bays and that below the ‘chapel’ of five. Pillars and capitals are plainer than at Samarès, and two are encased in later rough masonry to provide support for an inserted wall above. There, two narrow lights on the seaward side may well be original, but below the ‘chapel’, two lights in each wall are later, though ancient. Both undercrofts have irregular bedrock rising at one end, as does the much smaller undercroft at Saints, showing that the purpose of this space was to provide storage. At Saints, a spring, rising almost 300ft above sea-level at one of highest points in Guernsey – and surely the reason for the siting of this immensely old settlement – keeps the floor continually wet. Storage must consequently always have been limited to products suited to damp and cold places, most probably wine, since a bottle seal was the only find discovered by archaeologists. A curved flight of steps gave access to the chamber above.17 However, another reason to raise a chamber above ground level on an undercroft was to emphasize status. To have one’s private apartments off the ground floor, separated from the public rooms, was a pre-requisite of any seigneurial dwelling. Peasants had only halls, in which they cooked, ate and slept. By setting halls and chambers at right-angles the difference of function was also evident externally. Status was further emphasized by locating chamber-blocks at upper ends of sites. Where there was a slope this had the practical advantage of allowing entry to the chamber itself from ground level on one side whilst still being technically ‘first floor’ above a cellar approached from the lower side. This must have been the case at Saints, and is most clearly so at La Maison de Haut, an astonishing structure where the cyclopean walling of the basement may have its origins in a demolished dolmen (Figure 3). Built into it, entirely below ground level, is a domed pigsty, and nearby, a stone manger, a strange shute between them. Nesting-boxes, one made from a broken Caen-stone trough – and a stone pot for valuables built into a wall (where its presence can be masked by a stone) – may be later, dating from a refurbishment of the chamber-block in the first half of the

secondary development; some, however, were never so roofed. For a full discussion of their origin and characteristics, see McCormack 1986, 69 et seq. It may also be significant that many knights involved in the Latin principalities set up in the Near East and in Greece – after the sack of Constantinople in 1204 – were French. The Templar presence in the Channel Islands must not be discounted in the light of the interpretation of the ‘Mandylion’ stone at Vale Priory; McCormack forthcoming. 11 McCormack 1986, 294. 12 ibid, 306. 13 ibid, plan and elevations, 302. 14 ibid, 298, but subsequently re-interpreted with the aid of Dr Edward Impey.

15

cf undercrofts at Saint-Christophe-du-Foc and Ranville-la-Place, Manche. 16 The author is grateful to Dr Warwick Rodwell for pointing this out. 17 There appears to be no way of dating these steps, which may well be contemporary with the chamber block, but which may equally relate to the ‘integrated’ house of c 1450, supra. The location of the steps may be explained in relation to the cross-passage by the presence of the front doorway close to a corner, rather than centrally in the façade.

114

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands fourteenth century.18 At that period a cross-wall was either rebuilt, or inserted, and a curved stairway created. The latter linked with a rebuilt façade on the lower side – containing three arches of small, roughly-cut voussoirs – a large entry for carts; a small doorway leading directly to the stair; and a medium-sized entry for a horse stable. This façade seems to have made the building narrower,19 and may have replaced an attached hall of some sort. It is significant that the main house nearby is at right-angles to this block, a phenomenon often encountered where a hall has been rebuilt as a fully-fledged house. The early arches at La Maison de Haut might indicate that such a process had already begun before 1350, but it is perhaps safer to suggest that an earlier hall was merely rebuilt at that time, only later being rebuilt as a house. Unfortunately, the house itself has been much altered over the last 200 years, and the only dateable feature is a fireplace of c 1600, which, in the absence of other evidence, may serve to suggest a date for the final disappearance of the hall. At St Ouen’s Manor the hall was certainly rebuilt in the early fourteenth century in situ, raised on an undercroft of which some walling may be earlier. But a link with an older chamber-block was created by inserting a tower between the two, also on an undercroft (Figure 1). The hall’s internal arrangement is interesting,20 attested both by surviving features and by photographs before extensive alterations last century. Alignment is east–west, with a fireplace in the central bay of three on the north wall, and a fairly low-set dais window in the south wall opposite, at the upper end, showing that the high table was not set in front of the hearth but across the west gable wall. Here a high level window would also have flooded the room with light until the post-medieval addition of a pressoir. A somewhat insignificant contemporary doorway in the west wall of the tower could have been the main doorway, but this is now in the east gable, and although much later, may replace a grander original entry. If so, it opened onto a screens passage with opposed doorways north and south. On the north was probably a pentice leading to detached kitchens where the service quarters still are, and on the south was the tower, giving access to

the chamber-block beyond, as well as to another chamber over the lower end of the hall, above the screens passage. Evidence that this chamber was jettied into the hall – projecting further than the screens passage itself – remains in the form of a beam, now reused in the adjoining pressoir, which has no mortices in its soffit, but a continuous row on its upper side for a former half-timbered wall that presumably rose to roof-level as a closed truss. Unfortunately, only a little of the undercroft of the medieval chamber-block at St Ouen’s survived rebuilding in the late seventeenth century; its primitive masonry is reminiscent of the chamber-block at Longueville. The adjoining hall undercroft without a vault has, however, very different walling, formed of roughly-squared granite rubble, or moëllons, throughout. Below its west gable is a wide doorway with segmental inner arch and draw-bar holes, flanked by quite small but widely-splayed window openings, all with good dressings. No sign of access remains between the hall and this fine cellar, but entry was undoubtedly from the tower. However, staircases were removed to a second tower in the fifteenth century, constructed symmetrically on the north side, where kitchen and hall were now linked by a grander chamber-block, fragments of which can be discerned in a later reconstruction. Partly because of the lie of the land, which drops away at each end of the hall, partly because of the piece-meal, but substantial, evolution of the complex throughout the medieval period, but mostly because of the significance of the hall in the traditions of the de Carterets, St Ouen’s remains the only manorial hall in the Channel Islands surviving as designed in the fourteenth century. At Longueville (Figure 2), the chamber-block, dating perhaps as early as the twelfth century, still has a shallow but broad base for a vanished chamber fireplace of tiny, undressed stones similar to those in contemporary island churches as, for example, at Grouville. Its position shows that the gable walls must have been on an east–west alignment, the nearby and detached hall being approximately at right-angles to the north. Its alignment can be precisely fixed because a high tower was built on its western side during the early fourteenth century, perhaps contemporary with – or a little before – that just described in a similar position at St Ouen’s. Its masonry compares with c 1300–25 work in the chancel of Trinity Church. Only a generation or two later, the hall itself was renewed, and slightly realigned to form an exact right-angle with the old chamber-block. This, for some reason, was retained and the new work connected by an extra chamber, presumably filling the gap between. As at St Ouen’s, entry was at the lower end, here on the north. The front doorway has been covered, or removed, amongst modern kitchens, but a remarkably fine back doorway remains in the western wall alongside the now skewed tower. As at St Ouen’s the screens end of the hall had a heated chamber above it, projecting across one bay. Access was by the tower, whose staircase also opened on to a gallery running along the western wall, leading to both new and old chambers on the south side. The remaining two bays of the hall remained open to the roof, a tall dais window in the east wall of the southern bay lighting the high table, here aligned in the

18

Pottery safes of this sort are recorded in Jersey where they are known as paûtes. In Guernsey they are called ‘Guernsey safes’ and in Sark – which island, being only re-colonized in 1565 – where some, usually of Normandy stoneware, must be of post-medieval date. Others are definitely medieval, being built in with the masonry. They are excellent evidence that internal walls of houses were then un-plastered, since access depends on the identification of loose blocks of stone as matching their surroundings. Proof of their use as places in which to hide valuables, is demonstrated by the fact that hardly two are in the same position. They can turn up anywhere, in any room and at any height. 19 It necessitated the shortening of a huge beam which had that distinctive feature – a ‘reduced soffit’ in which the whole of the central part is cut away, leaving both ends thicker by about two inches. Straight chamfers are stepped down and stopped in the usual way, close to the wall, on the thickened parts. Only one other possible example of such a beam has been noted in the Channel Islands, at Les Villets (number 196 in McCormack 1980), but many have been observed by the author in Normandy, especially in the Pays d’Auge as, for example, at La Grange aux Dimes, Rumesnil (Impey 1998). 20 The scale and layout of this hall resemble the first-floor hall at Woodsford Castle, Dorset, of 1337 (Wood 1965, 235).

115

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

more usual position in front of the hearth. Gallery and dais window are recorded by Bateman,21 who demolished the kitchens, heightened the tower and inserted a floor into the hall. Here at Longueville are elements that became the hallmark of island houses for 150 years, perhaps perceived at birth; a gallery along one side of an open hall, small windows below and above; a large window opposite; an end-wall fireplace, with doorway alongside to an inner room, here a heated parlour that in turn had access beyond to an undercroft below the ancient chamber – at Longueville all on ground level because the land is flat; an entry which, like those in Guernsey had a back doorway: the whole forming almost a three-cell house, even if the lower end chamber was over the screens passage alone. It is not yet the standard plan, but all the elements are there. The final evolution was to place the parlour at the lower end, with Great Chamber of three bays spanning this and the adjoining cross-passage; to have the staircase tower always at the back, giving access to a gallery along the back wall; and to have a service room or cellar at the upper end, often dug into the hillside, behind the hall fireplace, with a second two-bay chamber above (Figure 4). Whilst this standard-type of house was emerging, other chamber-blocks were being newly built or rebuilt in a rather more conservative tradition. Off the west coast of Guernsey, the Benedictine Priory on Lihou Island constructed a two-cell block against one of its twelfth-century domestic buildings in the fourteenth century, before the confiscation of alien priories by Henry V in 1414.22 As all priests were thought of as seigneurial, deputies of the greatest Seigneur of all and often themselves the sons of gentlemen, their estates and lodgings had all the perquisites of seigneurial living: here a chapel, naturally; a colombier and garenne, or rabbit warren,23 a hall and a first-floor chamber. At Lihou, another element is introduced, familiar to students of great houses in northern France, a salle basse and salle haute ground-floor and first-floor halls above each other (a nearby example, a dependency of Saint-Florent-lèsSaumur, is Le Bregain in La Boussac, Ille-et-Vilaine).24 Excavations at Lihou have uncovered an east–west salle basse with end fireplace in the western wall offset for a doorway to a further room unfortunately almost completely robbed of masonry, but presumably either a service room as in local farmhouses or a parlour, where guests and monks could talk. Its front wall projects beyond that of the hall so that it must have been treated as a cross-wing, and its plan shows the familiar two to three proportions so often encountered in medieval rooms, probably with a chamber above, the separate roofs articulating visually the internal arrangements. Alongside its entrance, a passage

now truncated by the sea leads off, perhaps to kitchens or to a privy block. The fireplace in the salle basse was of the early ‘pillar’ type,25 robbed out and therefore leaving no worked stone on each side of the recessed hearth as later designs with chamfered ‘great bases’ would have done. The back wall of this lower hall has a projecting base for a first-floor hearth in its centre bay, on the north wall as at St Ouen’s. One of the two fireplaces may be reused at Les Huriaux Place, close by in Guernsey, together with some beakhead ornament in Caen stone from the Priory itself;26 if so, the pillars take the form of three shafts, and corbels above have two human heads carved on them. Many other island chapels, more humble, at least contained a dwelling under the same roof: the Franciscans on Herm Island attached a house with tourelle staircase to the little church there,27 showing that they had a first-floor chamber; and the parish church in Sark was organized in the same way, with a pointed stone vault demolished only in the nineteenth century, standing close to the manor house. A little later, at the very beginning of the fifteenth century, a particularly fine and unusual chamber-block was constructed at Grouville Court in Jersey, at right angles to and incorporating part of the gable end of a fourteenth-century hall with arched fireplace. Below the chamber-block are two cellars, the smaller one with stone barrel-vault, lying below rooms of high quality, which were originally unceiled and open to the roof, judging by a pointed head from a window, rebated for internal shutters and with holes for ferramenta, found in a gable end. Lateral fireplaces on the back wall, both retaining their octagonal stone chimneys, served the smaller ground-floor room over the cellar, and the larger first-floor room. The two-room plan on each floor effectively has cells of three bays at right-angles to each other, emphasizing their different function, as at Lihou, though here under the same roof. The proportions are those found in the Norwich Music House, at Boothby Pagnell, Christchurch Castle, the School of Pythagoras at Cambridge, in Castle Rising and Norwich Castle keeps;28 all of these either clearly divided into larger and smaller rooms within one block, or else with the motif of central wall fireplace between two windows set towards one end of the structure showing equally certainly that this was indeed the arrangement. However, at Hemingford Grey (Hunts) a fireplace between two windows is entirely central to a long wall and it is clear that this was just one chamber.29 So what was the extra cell that was sometimes included in chamber-blocks? Did these apartments sometimes provide both private hall and sleeping room for the family? Maybe the smaller rooms are extra ‘bedrooms’ for children? Or are they oratories? Certainly the central fireplace between two

21

25

22

26

Stevens 1982. For Bateman’s diary see Langton 1930. This domestic range is currently the subject of on-going archaeological research, whose findings in the next two or three seasons may well alter our understanding of the site. 23 Other garennes were those at Vale Priory and Les Annevilles, in Guernsey; the latter was moated and remains substantially intact. In Jersey, a garenne is recorded at La Hague Manor (Stevens 1965, 158). 24 Plan and elevations in Jones et al 1989; see especially 88–90.

McCormack 1980, 184–98. ibid, 212. 27 McCormack 1986, 273. 28 For plans of The Music House and Christchurch Castle, see Wood 1965, 5 and 18 respectively; for Boothby, Impey and Harris, infra; for Castle Rising, see the plan in Brown 1978; for the School of Pythagoras see RCHME 1959, 377–9. 29 Wood 1935, 188–9 and Figure 6.

116

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands windows was of considerable significance in medieval times. Not only is it present in all the Romanesque buildings quoted; it is there in the chamber at Le Manoir de Courson in the Pays d’Auge and at Yardley Hastings in Northamptonshire in the fourteenth century, 30 and it pervades all chambers in later houses in the Channel Islands until c 1600. Here, at Grouville Court, we have a house with three hearths. In Guernsey, every medieval dwelling that remains (and there are well over 200 from before 1550) has at least two. Of sixty others so far examined in detail in Jersey the same applies. And these are only houses outside the towns of St Peter Port and St Helier. In the King’s Mills, Guernsey, all seven houses standing in 1470 had two hearths. Compare this with the parish of Stoneleigh in Warwickshire, when, as late as 1664–5, 105 out of 173 households still had only one hearth,31 and the status or quality of island houses immediately stands out. By the early fifteenth century, when halls were rebuilt or houses built new, a different plan-form had emerged. Extra rooms were added in line, all under one roof, the hall still open, but with chambers above floored ends. These cross-passage houses were often identical in ground plan to French and English examples, for instance to many in Devon,32 but differed from the latter by being always of two full storeys. Superficially resembling long-houses, it can now be shown that they evolved by the turning of chamber-blocks through ninety degrees, to be in line with halls, adding them at the upper end, where, dug into hillsides, upper floors could still sometimes be entered from ground level, as at Les Nicolles and Les Romains in Guernsey, the storage area below being approached from the hall itself, alongside the hearth. Elsewhere, if there were no slope to the land, external stone stairs were no doubt still used, as at the chamber wing added to Le Tertre c 1450.33 In any case, it was now possible to have internal access via a gallery from a tourelle or projecting staircase turret placed close to the chamber in the fireplace bay of the open hall, alongside the high table where the family sat with their backs to the fire.34 These galleries also served smaller, unheated chambers over single-bay parlours and cross-passages in lower ends. But by about 1450, the desire for grander three-bay chambers led to a lengthening of lower ends, so that chambers could span both two-bay parlours and cross-passages. Unheated chambers were now placed at shortened single-bay upper ends, still over service rooms. Ornamental king-posts and closed trusses show that chambers as well as halls were not at first ceiled. But by 1488 in Guernsey chambers were being ceiled, and by c 1550, halls were ceiled as well and no more three-celled houses were built. Two-celled houses, without service room and unheated chamber at the upper end, became ubiquitous and dominated local house forms for 300 years.

What is not at present clear is whether the halls of two-celled houses were always floored over. At La Coutanchez in Guernsey, where arched fireplace, windows arched externally and internally, the segmental arched doorway and the use of local stone all proclaim a date before 1420, the hall was definitely floored ab initio. This house also preserves some trefoil-headed, unglazed wooden windows (Figure 6). However, the thirteenth-century single-aided hall at Rumesnil, in the Pays d’Auge in Normandy, essentially the same plan as a Channel Island two-celled house, but on a gigantic scale, has an open hall at one end, and an open chamber over a service room at the other.35 Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century two-celled houses, if derived from the same source, which remains to be proved, also may well usually have had open halls; and at least at Les Picques, c 1500,36 where the floor joists over the hall are later than everywhere else in the house, an open hall does seem likely. Whatever the case, the two-celled house plan proved extremely long-lasting, being easy to adapt to Renaissance influences later on, and still popular in the middle of last century. Such is the number of these ‘unified’ houses remaining in both Jersey and Guernsey, either two- or three-celled, that they cannot possibly all be truly seigneurial. Moreover, they do not seem to be indicators of a new class of householder after the Black Death, or for any other reason after 1350. This is proved by the realisation that in many cases when halls were rebuilt as cross-passage houses older chamber-blocks remained untouched alongside: thus the sites were mostly already ancient. We have seen at St Ouen’s and Longueville that halls but not chamber-blocks were rebuilt in the fourteenth century. Elsewhere, chamber-blocks still survive, at right-angles to houses, as at Le Marinel in Jersey and at La Vrangue Manor in Guernsey. Others, in Guernsey only, were rebuilt between c 1350 and c 1500 as ‘chamber wings’, attached to main houses at the rear of halls, usually against tourelles, which thus gave internal access to an extra three-bay chamber with gable-end fireplace – as usual with windows either side. No examples of these have so far been found in Jersey, but more than twenty are known in Guernsey (Figure 5). Other chamber-blocks remained intact until even later, probably being used for agricultural purposes by 1600, for after that they were often eventually rebuilt either as pressoirs or as stables, but always with the distinguishing features of having lodgings on the first floor with gable fireplace; of being set at right-angles to houses, frequently with the smallest of gaps between; and – unless built into hillsides – with handsome stone staircases outside to the lodgings, or ‘valet’s rooms’ as they were known in Guernsey. One of the best of these is at La Houguette,37 where the chamber-block was rebuilt as a pressoir by 1600, with superb outside staircase to a first-floor lodging complete with stone chimney hood to its fireplace and handsome granite stack. In all these we can

30

Wood 1965, 75 (plan). Alcock 1983, 200. 32 Beacham 1993, 35–6. 33 McCormack 1980, 62 (plan). 34 A typical example of this arrangement is illustrated – with plan and elevations – by McCormack 1993, 23–6. 31

35

Impey 1998. McCormack 1993, 55 (plan). 37 ibid, 28 36

117

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

recognize ‘footprints’ of early medieval chamber-blocks, and, given that many such ‘footprints’ in their turn must have been swept away, both islands formerly clearly had hundreds of medieval chamber-blocks. Occasionally, reused masonry, plan form and other features allow us to see that some chamber-blocks which appear to be sixteenth or seventeenth century are really rebuilds of earlier structures; Les Chasses, St John, Jersey, is one such and another superb example is at Les Maltières, also in Jersey, where a staircase was built to link chamber-block and house. Thus, long before 1400, even houses that were not, strictly speaking, manorial, also boasted manorial perquisites, and their successors, the ‘unified’ houses, have a richness of detail which shows that if they were not truly seigneurial residences themselves, they all knew what sort of house seigneurs should build, and imitated them. So many possessed octagonal stone querns or handmills that one wonders who exactly took their corn to the seigneurial watermills and windmills. Some had dovecotes, as at Le Tertre, in the northern part of Guernsey (a separate island until the dividing channel was reclaimed in 1805), where one is above a defensive tower at the angle of a walled courtyard. Later on, La Tourelle in Jersey had a dovecote at the top of its stair tower (Figure 7). Le Tertre also has the remains of a two-storeyed range over its double entrance arch, and the Guernsey peculiarity of a rear wing, attached to an open hall and containing a ground-floor service room also entered from outside by a grand arch, with a three-bay chamber above, entered from the tourelle. By c 1500, then, Le Tertre had three chambers, two of them heated. At La Haye-du-Puits, another house with defensive turrets, the wing is nearly as long as the main house, its first floor spanning a carriage arch giving access to a walled courtyard, and at Les Quertiers it is actually contemporary with the main house, all of fourteenthcentury date.38 Les Quertiers, though owned by a leading island family, was not the centre of a fief. And yet, like all the houses surviving from the period 1350–1550, it had all the trappings of a seigneurial residence. So what else did demonstrate seigneurial status? Apart from the ‘seigneurial minimum’ defined by Professor Meirion-Jones of a hall and chamber, provided the chamber is off the ground floor,39 I suggest that there were many things and that their effect was cumulative. First of all, a grand approach, an allée d’honneur. In Guernsey it was more often called la cache, in Jersey la chasse (really signifying an ox-drove and perhaps summing up the origins and farming outlook of this island gentry class). On the roadside there might be a finely-masoned entrance arch or arches, for carriages and pedestrians, as at La Groignet, Guernsey (Figure 8) and then a tree-lined drive. Or there might just be a drive, as in Jersey at La Chasse des Demoiselles Bandinel, or there

might be an arch at each end, as at Les Granges de Beauvoir and La Haye du Puits, Guernsey, where porters’ lodges are attached. At Les Sts. Gerniains, Jersey, the porter’s lodge is alongside the arch on the roadside. Jersey has many of these fine archways, two at The Elms, three at Les Augrès Manor.40 Looking at the outsides of houses, walling itself is significant. If you could afford it, in 1400, the façade at least would be in roughly-shaped rectangular blocks, or moëllons; by the end of the sixteenth century, true ashlars (Figure 9). But in any case, the doorway itself would be arched, with properly-worked stone, often from quarries far away. In Guernsey, handsome red Cobo stone was extensively used until Calvinistic times, when everything turned grey. At Longueville Manor, the outside arch to the hall has Yvetôt-Bocage stone and foreign sandstone in its jambs and inner order; in its outer order, Jersey stone alternating with a brown stone of unknown provenance. After 1420, when the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel was in English hands for thirty years, micaceous granite from the Chausey Islands was extensively used for window dressings and door surrounds (Figure 10). Windows themselves became showpieces of wealth and taste, as at Les Aix (Figure 11). And handsome stone chimneys, sometimes round, sometimes octagonal, announced the number of hearths inside. So how do we know that all this had anything to do with prestige? Well, in 1565, Helier de Carteret, Seigneur of St Ouen in Jersey, was allowed to re-colonize the island of Sark, which was given to him as the last fief ever granted by the Crown. Of the forty houses built then, or soon afterwards, only the seigneur’s was two-storeyed and had a tourelle. Surviving from earlier times were two chamber-blocks at the end of which was the Calvinist temple for the island, like a medieval lord’s chapel. At least half of the forty houses had only one hearth, without any decoration, and no house had an arched doorway: at least, none has survived. Since these Sark houses are amongst the earliest single-storeyed houses in the Channel Islands, we may assume that many houses in Jersey and Guernsey must once have been of this simple sort, no doubt a larger proportion the further back one goes. It was against such dwellings as these that those we have been describing stood out; but what a large number of grander houses there were! If exteriors were important, interiors were doubly impressive. The biggest houses had three-bay halls, the rest two-bay. Between the tourelle stair doorway and the window below the gallery was usually an evier, or recessed cupboard, with shelf for preparing food; it either had a slop-hole underneath or a trough. One such has its front carved with mermaids holding combs and mirrors, one has a lion and leopard.41 Another recess by the front doorway or near the entrance to the hall was a lavabo, like a church piscina, and for the same purpose, for the washing of hands (Figure 12). Within this Gothic niche, often trefoil or

38

ibid, 12. Recent work has shown that the house was splendidly updated by Guillaume le Caretier, Bailiff 1447–66, but that its original fabric is a couple of generations older. McCormack, unpublished report 1999. 39 Jones et al 1989, 91; Meirion-Jones and Jones 1993, 176.

40

Many examples are illustrated by Stevens 1965 and by McCormack 1980. 41 McCormack 1980, plates 67 and 69.

118

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands ogee-headed, a hook held chains for a basin, and a tray-shaped shelf below took away drips. Some houses had upstairs lavabos as well, in the heated chambers. Such lavabos are rare in English buildings, though the de Valence family put five in their castle at Goodrich, at the entrance to chambers (not that the guide-book takes any notice of them, except perhaps to confuse one with a chapel piscina), and Little Wenham Hall has one.42 At Castle Acre Priory, the Prior’s Lodging has one alongside the garderobe entrance, and at Mont-Saint-Michel the Abbot’s Lodging has several, as do other important houses in the Cotentin, for instance at Saint-Malo-de-la-Lande, again alongside the garderobe. However, it was on the fireplace that most care was lavished, both in halls and chambers. Early hearths were arched, later ones had joggled lintels necessitating massive shoulder stones to support them, cantilevered right through gable walls. Coats of arms and merchants’ marks were prominently displayed on these lintels;43 other decoration, often heads, adorned the corbels on either side. Before 1450, many had handsome lamp-brackets attached,44 and even statue-brackets as well. Their tapering stone hoods were visible for the whole height of their open halls, creating immensely satisfying designs, and chamber ones were flanked by the little windows already mentioned. At least two houses had coussièges, stone window seats, one in Guernsey in the back of the chamber at Le Douit,45 and others in the front windows of the hall at La Malzarderie in Jersey. Throughout the house oak panelling, carved beams and ceiling joists, king-post or crown-post roofs all were designed to impress (Figure 13),46 and were no doubt just the backdrop for hangings, moveable furniture and treasured possessions that we can only imagine. Clearly these are not the dwellings of peasants. Provincial and rustic they might be, by comparison with the houses of courtiers and noblemen; but status they certainly had, seigneurial either in fact or in wishful thinking. They were replete with references to the dwellings of those much wealthier and more powerful, attempting to impress a stranger at every turn with the quality of the house at which he had arrived. The sub-infeudation of the thirteenth century had surely created the framework where such buildings could develop in large numbers, but by the end of the medieval period display had spread far beyond feudal constraints; merchants and anyone who could afford it built the same sort of home, enjoying a standard of housing well above that of other isolated communities. The social implications of this have yet to be studied in detail, but it is interesting that in our generation these houses are again being sought after by those who are wealthier than their peers; once more, ownership of a Jersey or Guernsey farmhouse provides a cachet immediately obvious in island society, if not further abroad.

ABSTRACT Always occupying a privileged position on the seaways around north-western Europe and in cross-Channel trade with England, the Channel Islands became, after the loss of mainland Normandy by the English Crown in 1204, an invaluable political outpost close to France and an important link with English possessions in Gascony as well as an busy entrepôt for Bordeaux wine. Loyalty to the English Crown was, in the end, more important than feudal niceties, and this paper shows in what ways islanders, virtually independent, used the design and decoration of their homes, within a French architectural vocabulary, to demonstrate an affluence and social importance very different from that available to anyone of less than seigneurial status in the surrounding parts of France. RÉSUMÉ Occupant toujours une position privilégiée sur les routes maritimes vers l’Europe du Nord-Ouest et dans le commerce d’outre-Manche avec l’Angleterre, les Îles anglo-normandes devinrent après la perte de la Normandie par la Couronne d’Angleterre en 1204 un avant-poste politique inestimable, proche de la France, et un lien important avec les possession anglaises de Gascogne, ainsi qu’un entrepôt très utilisé pour le vin de Bordeaux. La loyauté envers la couronne d’Angleterre furent finalement plus forte que les subtilités féodales et cet article montre de quelle manière les insulaires, quasiment indépendants, utilisèrent le programme et la décoration de leurs maisons, à l’intérieur d’un vocabulaire architectural français, pour faire la démonstration d’une richesse et d’une importance sociale très différentes de celles qui étaient accessibles à quiconque avait un statut social inférieur au statut seigneurial dans les régions de France voisines. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Die Kanalinseln, die schon immer eine privilegierte Lage an den Meeren im Nordwesten von Europa, sowie im Handel zwischen England und Europa besassen, kamen nach dem Verlust der Normandy der englischen Krone im Jahre 1204, in einen unschätzbaren, politischen Vorposten nahe zu Frankreich. Auch wurden sie zu einer sehr wichtigen Verbindung mit englischen Besitzen in Gascony, sowie auch ein belebter ‘Speicher’ für Bordeau Wein. Treue zur englischen Krone war schlussendlich wichtiger als feudale Feinheiten. Dieser Artikel zeigt in welcher Weise die Inselbewohner, praktisch unabhängig, den Stil und die Dekoration ihrer Häuser, mit einem französischen architektonischen Einfluss betonten, um zu zeigen, dass Reichtum und soziale Wichtigkeit ganz anders sind, verglichen mit demselben von jemandem, der einen tieferen adligen Rang in der umliegenden Gegend von Frankreich, hatte. Acknowledgements My grateful thanks go firstly to all the many householders in Jersey, Guernsey, Sark and Alderney without whose permission and often enthusiastic encouragement our current state of knowledge could not have been attained.

42

Wood 1965, 374–6; others are illustrated by McCormack 1980, 213. McCormack 1980, plates 65, 71, 83 and 85. 44 ibid, 293. 45 ibid, 143. 46 ibid, 161–6. 43

119

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

–– 1991. For the ‘Mandylion’ stone at the Vale Priory see ‘The top step’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 57, no 2, 45–6, and also McCormack 1997 –– 1994. ‘Guernsey pigs’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 50, 40–4 –– 1995–6. ‘Imagine a tourelle’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 51, 76–80 [Designs of tourelles, 1350–1650] –– 1996. ‘Guernsey in Winchester’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 52, 11–12 –– 1996. ‘The Land of Cockaigne’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 52, 46–7 –– 1996. ‘What is the difference between a Crapaud and a Donkey?’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 52, 60–2 –– 1997. ‘To understand houses, look at churches’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 53, 17–21 –– 1997. ‘Galleting’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 53, 50–1 –– 1997. ‘Guernsey and The Holy Grail’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 53, 72–4 –– 1998. ‘The Abandonment of Sark’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 54, 68–70 –– 1998. ‘Saints Farm’, Report and Trans, Soc Guernesiaise, 24, part 3, 426–57 –– 1999. ‘Sark: Alive or Dead?’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 55, 14–18 –– forthcoming. ‘Sark: A Renaissance’ [Examines houses built after 1565] Meirion-Jones, G I, and Jones, M C E, eds, 1993. Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France. Proceedings of the Colloquium held on 24 November 1990. London: Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers, No. 15 Moullin, E B and Priaulx, T F 1956. ‘Domestic architecture in Guernsey before 1750: part I, twostorey houses’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 12, 151–9. [Part II did not appear] Priaulx, T F and Moullin, E B 1956. ‘Guernsey house plans’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 12, 73–4. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England 1959. Cambridge, 2 vols Stevens, J C 1965. Old Jersey Houses and those who lived in them, 1500–1700 Stevens, J C 1977. Old Jersey Houses and those who lived in then, from 1700 onwards Stevens, J C 1982. The History of Longueville, privately published by Mr and Mrs N Lewis, Longueville Manor, St Saviours, Jersey, CI Stevens, J C and C P 1965. ‘Early farmhouses in Guernsey and Jersey’, Rev Guernsey Soc, 17, 1961, 6–9 Wood, M 1935. ‘Norman domestic architecture’, Archaeol J, 92, 167–242 Wood, M 1965. The English mediaeval house

The support of The Historic Buildings Section of La Société Guernesiaise has been invaluable, especially of Mr Arthur Klein, former Historic Buildings Officer of the States of Guernsey Ancient Monuments Committee. In Jersey, particular thanks go to Miss Jean Arthur, a colleague of the late Mrs Stevens in her monumental works on island architecture, for sharing with me her intimate knowledge of Jersey houses, and to many other friends who have criticized my work constructively, offered many suggestions, provided accommodation and introductions. The support of several members of the Planning and Environment Committee in Jersey has been most welcome. La Société Serequiaise and Alderney Society members have been exceptionally helpful. But for crystallizing ideas and sparking off new lines of thought I am for ever indebted to various members of the Vernacular Architecture Group, and in particular to Professor Gwyn Meirion-Jones and our colleagues in the European Domestic Buildings Research Group, both French and English. Bibliography BOOKS AND ARTICLES Alcock, N W 1983. People at home Langton, C 1930. ‘The seigneurs and manor of Longueville’; Appendix A: ‘The arms of Nichol (Nicolle) at Longueville Manor’; Appendix B: ‘The journal of the Rev W B Bateman, Longueville Manor’ [This article is signed C B Bateman]; Appendix C: ‘“Memorabilia” of Rev C B Bateman’, Annual Bulletin Soc Jersiaise, 11, part 3, 245–73 Beacham, P 1993. Devon Building Brown, R A 1978. Castle Rising Bisson, P 1996. ‘Philippe de Barentin and the Payns of Samarès’, Annual Bull Soc Jersiaise, 26, part 4, 537–52 Clermont [Lord] 1880, A history of the family of Fortescue in all its branches Ewen, A H 1961. ‘The fiefs of the island of Guernsey’, Trans Soc Guernesiaise, xvii, 173–209. Gallia Christiana, tome XI : de provincia rotomagensi, Paris 1759, Archiepiscopi rotomagenses, XLIV Malgerius, colonnes 29–30 Guernsey Society [The] 1963. The Guernsey Farmhouse Impey, E 1998. ‘Le manoir de Rumesnil, faussement appelé “La Grange aux Dîmes”: un hall médiéval à bas-côté au centre de Normandie’, Bull Soc Antiq Normandie, 61, 119–44 Jones, M C E, Meirion-Jones, G I, Guibal, F, and Pilcher, J R 1989. ‘The seigneurial domestic buildings of Brittany: a provisional assessment’, Antiq J, 69, 73–110 McCormack, J 1980. The Guernsey house –– 1986. Channel Island churches –– 1993. Conference Brochure of the Vernacular Architecture Group, Spring Conference 1993

UNPUBLISHED REPORTS Some 500 detailed reports prepared for the States of Guernsey Ancient Monuments Committee, mostly of pre-1800 houses considered for listing, and now lodged with the Heritage Committee, Sir Charles Frossard House, La Charroterie, St Peter Port, Guernsey. A complete set of these reports is also in the author’s private collection. 120

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands

Guernsey

Jersey

La Maison d’Aval. Detailed analysis with plans and photographs.

Research on Jersey houses, 1996. An assessment of 66 houses. Jersey Fieldwork, 1997. Examines thirty-one houses, with sketch-plans.

La Ruette, St Saviour’s. Lists of houses extant, shown on the 1795 map of Jersey. Some 1200 houses identified throughout Jersey. Site visits in progress to verify initial findings.

The Cottage, 56, Hauteville. The Forest Rectory. St Andrew’s Church – published as church guidebook.

Les Mauves. Detailed analysis with plans and photographs.

An eighteenth-century boulangerie at Le Moulin de Haut, King’s Mills.

Chestnut Farm. photographs.

Les Caretiers, St Sampson’s.

Homestead, St Ouen.

Pres l’Eglise, St Saviours.

Alderney and Sark

Roof of the Town Church [St Peter Port] – describes a fifteenth-century roof-structure uncovered 1998.

Alderney: Alderney Houses, an Interim Report, 1998. Examines 48 houses.

Le Variouf de Haut, Forest.

For Sark: Interim Report 1997. Examines fourteen houses in detail, with plans.

Wulfpuna, Grand Bouet (now demolished).

121

Detailed

analysis

with

plans

and

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 St Ouen’s Manor, Jersey. Showing apparent evolution of the medieval core. Hall is above a cave or store, whose exterior doorway lies between two typically wide, but shallow, cave windows. Both projecting wings may have been chamber-blocks

122

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands

Figure 2 Longueville Manor, Jersey. Evolution, showing how a formerly detached hall and chamber have been combined into a prototype of standard hall-house plans of the later Middle Ages.

Figure 3 Maison de Haut, Guernsey. An early chamber-block, the upper part greatly altered in the seventeenth century. On the ground floor, the west wall is of the fourteenth century, with arches matching contemporary work in local castles and churches. This wall truncates the remaining external walls, of which those around the pigsty contain enormous boulders

123

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 4 La Maison Bordeaux, Guernsey. An outstanding three-cell open-hall house, whose main features were constructed of Chausey or French granite, either during the second phase of the Hundred Years’ War, when the îles de Chausey were in English hands while the Mont-Saint-Michel was blockaded, 1420–50, or — just possibly — before c 1390, when the neighbouring Cotentin was also in English hands or in those of their allies

124

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands

Figure 5 Le Tertre, Guernsey : a three-cell open-hall house of c 1400 or earlier, with a fifteenth-century chamber-wing at the hall end. The ground floor of the wing was originally an unheated store or cave, whose gable window — with ferramenta holes and rebated internally for a shutter — is blocked by a later hearth

125

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 6 A fourteenth-century wooden window at La Coutanchez, Guernsey. One of a pair surviving either side of the arched chamber fireplace ; this window was never glazed

Figure 7 La Tourelle, Jersey. A grand stair-tower, constructed at the end of the sixteenth century and still retaining its pigeonnier which rises above the roof of the main house and formerly had a conical thatched roof

126

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands

Figure 8 Le Groignet, Guernsey. An early entrance to a câche, with pedestrian arch but unarched carriage entrance — all in Cobo stone — predating the availability of French granites. The road has been cut away in recent times

Figure 9 Léoville, Jersey. A handsome façade, seemingly in its original state, showing that before the beginning of the sixteenth century open halls were already being abandoned, at least in some buildings in Jersey, perhaps even earlier at La Coutanchez, Guernsey. Though only of two-cells, both houses were of very high quality, with lavabos and fine fireplaces

127

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 10 La Chaumière du Chêne, Jersey. A ‘footprint’ of a two-bay chamber-block, touching the gable end of a main house, the doorway of which is unexpectedly ornate, closely resembling the window- and door-heads of Jersey churches c 1525

Figure 11 Les Aix, Jersey. A superb window in French granite, seemingly inserted for an additional chamber in this very large three-cell house in the early sixteenth century. The house contains equally splendid lavabos, fireplaces and wall-cupboards of a century before

128

John McCormack: Manors and Seigneurial Pretensions in the Channel Islands

Figure 12 La Forge, Guernsey. A fine lavabo, placed between tourelle entrance and rear doorway, in a house already existing in 1470

Figure 13 La Rocque Balan, Guernsey. Standing opposite an eponymous outcrop with cupmarks, this fine early fifteenth-century house retains many early features: its tourelle opens from the fireplace bay of the hall, giving access to the principal chamber at the upper end. The lower-end chamber was jettied into the hall, over the cross-passage and an extremely fine évier

129

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

130

The Noble Residence in Brittany: Problems and Recent Advances in Dendrochronological Dating and Interpretation by

Gwyn Meirion-Jones, Michael Jones, Martin Bridge, Andy Moir and Don Shewan

INTRODUCTION

The first is the problem created by the temperate Atlantic climate with its heavy rainfall. Tree-growth is fast, particularly in the west of the Armorican peninsula, with two main consequences: trees are ready for constructional use at any time after about forty years of growth, whereas dendrochronological analysis in the initial stages demands series in excess of eighty rings of growth – for statistical reasons – to be sure of adequate cross-matching if a unique date – absolute dating – is to emerge.4 Many of the oak beams which we have sampled show that the trees were frequently felled at about sixty years of age, and it follows that a high percentage of such timber is, given present techniques, undatable. But the climate of Brittany is far from uniform. In the west, where rainfall is higher, our success rate is lower than in the much drier – and more continental – eastern areas. Climate may show remarkable variations over quite short distances. Sharp climatic boundaries are rare; rather there is a gradual change from one region to another. It is the meso-regions which are significant, rather than the macro-regions. The eastern and western sides of the bay of Saint-Brieuc are a case in point; we have experienced low success rates in both the Penthièvre and the Goëllo. But more recently there are indications that our persistence is beginning to bear fruit, as the successful dating of Kermathaman (Pédérnec, Côtes-d’Armor) has shown.5 The greatest breakthrough in recent years, however, has been the high rate of success at both Le Plessis Josso (Theix, Morbihan) and Le Bois Orcan (Noyal-sur-Vilaine, Ille-etVilaine), data from these sites providing the core of our new Sub-Brittany master-chronology, against which we are now dating sites which at an earlier stage would not date at all (eg, Kerandraou, Troguéry, Côtes-d’Armor). This confirms our belief then that certain of those sites which we were unable to date, notwithstanding good samples displaying sufficiently long series, might eventually do so as our master-chronologies encompassed the wider variation in growth in the region. The second major problem in the application of dendrochronological techniques in Brittany is the practice of ‘shredding’ trees – the lopping of branches – approximately every nine years, in order to obtain small timber for firewood and for use in rural crafts. This is essentially a practice of the peasant farmer, utilizing his timber resources to the maximum, particularly hedgerow timber. Trees so managed may, eventually, be felled and used for

Since the early 1980s the authors have been engaged on a multidisciplinary project The Seigneurial Domestic Buildings of Brittany. This has three principal components: the architectural and archaeological recording of standing buildings; associated archive work on both documentary and iconographical sources; and the dating of selected buildings by dendrochronology. Primary aims of the research are to identify the elements of the seigneurial residence in the former duchy of Brittany, to trace and explain its evolution and to establish a typology and chronology from the point of ‘descent from the motte’ to c 1700. DENDROCHRONOLOGY AND BRITTANY Dendrochronology had never previously been attempted in Brittany. Indeed, when we began our study, the technique was only in its embryo stage in France. We were thus entering virgin territory as far as this technique was concerned.1 Sampling for dendrochronology – the taking of cores from oak beams and, occasionally, the sectioning of dismantled beams – was at first undertaken by Professor Meirion-Jones working alone. This early fieldwork was followed by a more ambitious expedition in the summer of 1985.2 The difficulty of sustaining such fieldwork cannot be overestimated. It was inevitable that the success rate of dating was initially low, but probably no lower than in any other region where no previous research in the technique had been previously undertaken. It is only now, some two decades later, that the development of master chronologies has enabled us to benefit from a higher rate of success. Buildings which would not date in the early 1980s are now beginning to do so.3 Whilst this is not the place fully to reappraise the scientific problems arising, several must briefly be noted. 1

2

3

Dating had been attempted in Normandy by the CRAM (Caen) and, although the Besançon laboratory already existed, its influence had not then reached north-west France. When, a few years ago, the Besançon laboratory began seriously to work in the Grand’Ouest we were pleased to make available to them our master chronologies; further collaboration is envisaged at the time of writing. This and subsequent paragraphs draw heavily on ‘The dendrochronology of Brittany: an update’, by Andy Moir, to be found in each of our unpublished reports of the dendrochronology of individual sites. For these, see note under Bibliography, infra. Kerandraou (Troguéry, Côtes-d’Armor) is one such example; cf Meirion-Jones and Jones 1995b.

4

5

131

But see Appendix, infra. With greater replication sequences of as few as forty-five rings may become datable. Report on the dendrochronology of Kermathaman.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

constructional purposes. But shredding induces dramatic response in tree-growth patterns, reflected in the compressed ring-pattern for a number of years after branches have been removed. Mostly, samples from such trees are quite useless for dendrochronological purposes; the management-induced growth-patterns mask the climatically-induced responses. The use of timber deriving from such origins is not wholly confined to peasant houses and significant quantities may be encountered in the seigneurial residences with which we are concerned, particularly the smaller manors. Management of forest-grown timber is also inadequately understood. Our experience suggests that, particularly during the later Middle Ages, the management of oak timber destined for constructional purposes was efficient and widely-practised. Such medieval oak as survives is almost always wide-ringed and was frequently felled after only forty, fifty or sixty years of growth. We repeatedly encounter this phenomenon – notably in buildings of fourteenth-, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century date; current dendrochronological techniques are such that this timber cannot be dated. Our experience suggests that from the seventeenth century onwards, particularly when buildings were being refurbished, repaired or extended, an entirely different kind of timber was used, not so obviously managed, and sometimes displaying two hundred years of growth or more. What we do not know, for the moment, is the extent to which medieval management of timber involved the lopping of branches in order to induce trees to grow taller and straighter to provide longer beams more suited for constructional timber. It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that some timber may originate outside the region, i.e., that it has been ‘imported’, but not necessarily from overseas. Where sapwood is present dates may be given within a range of years by using the results of an estimate for the average number of sapwood rings. Our reports on Brittany published before 1989 used an estimate of 18–50 years for the average number of sapwood rings. Following a study of 219 living trees, the range of 9–28 years of sapwood – within ninety-five per cent statistical confidence limits (two Standard Deviations) – is now applied to medieval samples.6 Dr Guibal arrived at estimates of 6–34 years,7 figures similar to those established for the Loire valley,8 but the average for Brittany was slightly lower. These estimates arise from the sampling of living oaks by Dr Guibal in selected forests – notably the Forêt de Carnoët, the Forêt du Gâvre, the Forêt de Rennes, the Forêt de La Hunaudaye and the Forêt de Coat-an-Hay – all in Brittany.9 We are frequently asked how we allow for the time interval during which it is supposed that oak timber was left to season before being used. The answer is that we do not. Oak timber was used green, as English evidence makes only too clear.10 The time interval between the felling of a tree and its working is thus very short and unlikely to be more

than one or two years as the evidence from both Coadélan and, more importantly, a more ambitious construction project at Tréguier in 1432 – that of the cathedral’s spire (clochier) – make clear.11 This evidence is crucial for confirming the practice – in the region – of using the timber almost immediately, i.e., green. This practice is confirmed repeatedly by carpenters whom we have questioned orally; it is furthermore generally true in France overall. Ships’ carpenters likewise worked with green oak. This is not to say that for some of the greatest buildings oak was never seasoned; there is some evidence that it was. But for the vast majority of the buildings in our research area it is safe to assume a zero time-interval between the felling of the tree and the utilization of the oak in construction. Not only is seasoned oak much harder to work, but no country carpenter is likely to have had the capital means to invest in a large stock of timber laid aside for seasoning. Furthermore, such evidence as we have suggests that it was timber from the domaine that was used in construction for the great majority of our buildings. The transport of large pieces of oak was both a difficult and expensive business. At Coadélan (Prat, Côtes-d’Armor) in 1659, the devis specifically requires the owner to provide felled timber ready for use by the carpenters when they arrive on site.12 This has all the indications of being a general practice and not just an isolated occurrence.13 The carpenters then worked up the oak in situ, the courtyard of the building becoming the carpenters’ yard for the duration of the contract.

6

12

THE APPLICATION OF DENDROCHRONOLOGY Having briefly discussed some of the problems involved in the use of dendrochronology (on which interested readers may find further information in some of our previously

11

See note under Bibliography, infra. Guibal 1987; 1988; Guibal et al 1987a; 1987b; Guibal and Pilcher 1988. 7 Jones et al 1989, 99 et seq. 8 Pilcher 1987. 9 Jones et al 1989, 83; 99–100. 10 This point was made in relation to England by Salzman 1967, 237.

13

132

The difficulties experienced by the Chapter of Tréguier in obtaining timber to rebuild the cathedral’s spire is eloquent testimony to the problems of finding suitable green wood and its use. In late December 1432, the ‘maistres conjointz ensemble en l’œvre du clochier’ were sent ‘pour savoir ou l’en peust trouver du boys’, and, after visiting various places, including the parishes of Vieux Marché, Ploëzal and Callac – and despite ‘le grant nege que nul ne povoit aler par chemin’ – eventually found what they needed in the woods of the sire de Ploesquellec, which they were able to buy from him at Lannion after inspecting it at Locmichel (A[rchives] d[épartementales] des Côtesd’Armor [cited as ACA], G 373, fonds de l’Évêché de Tréguier, 1432, accounts, fos. 16r–17r). Jean de Ploegonven, who then transported ‘seix grosses pouldres qui sont assises soulz le clochier pour la somme de 6 l. 10s.’, complained so much about ‘le poys et charge et grevance d’amener led. boys’ that he almost refused to carry out his contract, and had to be paid an extra 10s for his pains (ibid, f. 17r). The beams were eventually inserted in May and June 1433 after preparation in a carpenter’s yard (ibid, fos. 18v–19v). Elsewhere, some accounts of 1368 have revealing detail on the acquisition and costs of sawn timber from newly-felled trees used for the repair of the bridge at Auray (AD d’Ille-et-Vilaine [cited as AIV], 1 F 1111). Jones et al 1989, 83, note 37, and infra, n. 22. The earliest surviving detailed inventory of a Breton manor (La Prévalaye, Rennes, 1478) includes a list of pieces of timber in stock, some of it oak, and measuring between twenty and twenty five pieds in length which we may assume was intended for building purposes (AIV, 16 J 1).

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany published work),14 we turn now to the application of the technique at eight particular sites. It must be stressed that in sampling oak timber for dating we have almost always enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to take a large number of cores. It has been our policy to take samples from a very large number of timbers at each site. Consequently, we may reasonably suppose that the dates which emerge from subsequent analysis are representative of the evolution of the building as a whole. Tantalizingly, we have been unable to secure dates for certain timbers which we believe – on stylistic and archaeological grounds – to be prefifteenth century. Our experience strongly indicates that our approach to sampling large numbers of timbers is the only way to produce a reliable picture of the evolution of a building. Limited sampling – as is now all too frequently practised by official bodies with limited budgets, based on the subjective selection of timbers – may provide dates which may lead to serious errors in the interpretation of building phases. We shall furnish numerous examples to illustrate this problem in our forthcoming publications.

residence, leading to considerable changes in both comfort and circulation and the consequent social implications. Both the kitchen and the lower end of the lower hall (salle basse) yield fourteenth-century dates.16 From the fourteenth to the late seventeenth century, the period which covers the main stages of the construction and evolution of the manor of Coadélan, it descended in the hands of the minor noble family of Le Chevoir.17 They were in all likelihood the original builders, though this cannot yet be proved from written records since the earliest mention of the family so far discovered only dates from 1365 while the architectural and dendrochronological evidence suggests that Coadélan itself was begun shortly after 1300, if not before. Later evidence, including shields decorating the building with the arms of Le Chevoir – one displaying the blazons of Le Chevoir and Le Rouge, presumably celebrating the marriage of Rolland Le Chevoir and Jeanne Le Rouge c 150018 – testify to their subsequent ownership. This was certainly continuous from the time of Merien Le Chevoir (fl 1365) until the death of Vincent-Joseph Le Chevoir in 1667, when Coadélan passed by marriage to the Bouillé-Turquant family who still held it at the Revolution. This is not the place to relate in detail the history of the Le Chevoir, whose most famous representative was Marie, child-wife of the notorious brigand, Guy Eder, sire de La Fontenelle, who died in February 1603, a few months after her husband was broken on the wheel.19 It is relevant to note here, however, that not only do the family archives provide much vivid detail on the turbulent history of the family, a story of high passion and drama which at times resembles Greek tragedy,20 but they also provide critical evidence for the later history of the building itself. Some financial accounts, for instance, furnish details on refurbishment at Coadélan when Marie and Guy held it.21 But the main evidence of this kind so far discovered relates to major rebuilding by Anne Boterel, dowager dame de Coadélan, curatrice of her son, Vincent-Joseph, in the 1650s. For this provides, in a wealth of detail all-too-rare in our experience of Breton seigneurial archives, not only contracts and specifications for the work to be undertaken, together with quittances allowing the sequence in which it was carried out to be traced, but also independent

COADÉLAN, PRAT, CÔTES-D’ARMOR Coadélan is a spectacular example of a seigneurial building which has evolved over a long period of time. It incorporates an early residential tower and stands on a site of even longer and possibly uninterrupted human occupance since prehistory as evidenced by the menhir guarding a freshwater spring that stands just outside the main modern entrance to the manor. The building itself was heavily restored in the mid seventeenth century and a fire in 1988 destroyed most of the timber-work of the interior of the early tower. In its present form this residence consists of a central block of two superimposed halls flanked by the early residential tower to the east and a second tower containing chambres to the west (a chapelle having occupied the ground floor). Our attempts to date the eastern tower by dendrochronology initially failed but, following the fire of 1988, it was possible to obtain sections from many firedamaged beams salvaged from the interior. These yielded a date within the range 1655–9 showing that this tower was re-floored during the large-scale repairs of that period. It is to this period too that the present ceiling of the salle haute dates, a plafond/plancher almost certainly inserted in what had previously been an upper hall open to the roof (salle haute à charpente apparente). We have referred to this inserted ceiling elsewhere and full publication is in preparation.15 This ceiling is of enormous significance for not only must it have replaced two galleries placed against each of the gable walls of the salle haute at a slightly lower level (for the floor-level of the former gallery at the upper end is marked by the plaster on the gable wall), but it and many other examples mark that great transition from the open hall to the ceiled hall. This had profound consequences both in the architecture and planning of the seigneurial 14

15

16

Within the ranges 1304–16 and 1365–81 respectively. The main family archives are in the ACA, 53 J 1–12, but may be supplemented from many other sources, among them an important eighteenth-century genealogy in Bibliothèque Nationale de France (cited as BNF), MS français 22349, f 172. 18 Roland Le Chevoir (fl 1497–1532) seems to have been very active in building up his properties. In 1509 he obtained permission to place an armorial tomb in the choir of the church of Prat (ACA, E 1026) and François I authorised a third post to his gibbet at Coadélan in 1521 (ACA, 53 J 4). 19 cf Baudry 1920. 20 Lancelot (III) Le Chevoir (d 1584), father of Marie, acknowledged six bastards by Catherine Prigent in his will (details omitted by Baudry, 433– 7) but made grants to his wife for ‘des peines et traverses qu’elle a souffert en sa compaignie depuis qu’ils sont ensembles’ (ACA, 53 J 3). On the death of Marie Le Chevoir, her uncle and successor, Tanguy Le Chevoir, was killed by his own son’s father-in-law, in a dispute over the succession, while the son (Lancelot IV) was subsequently declared a perpetual minor because of insanity, though he survived many years in the keeping of various guardians and was married three times. 21 ACA, E 1633. 17

Jones et al 1989, 83; Meirion-Jones et al 1993; 1995; Meirion-Jones and Jones, 1995a; 1995b; Meirion-Jones and Nassiet 1997; MeirionJones and Jones, 1998; Meirion-Jones, Jones et al, forthcoming. Meirion-Jones et al 1995, 74; Meirion-Jones and Jones, ‘Coadélan en Prat, Côtes-d’Armor’, forthcoming.

133

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

substantiation for the dates derived from dendrochronology, since it furnishes details enabling us to identify still-surviving timber used on that occasion, which has recently provided cores for analysis. Coadélan thus constitutes a test case for the correlation of historic and scientific evidence in our inquiry.22

1489–1508 from which a felling date within the range AD 1489–1502 is entirely plausible. The salle haute was ceiled with timbers felled soon after 1495. Our views on this upper hall require more space adequately to explain than is available here. However, we contend that this was previously a salle haute à charpente apparente into which a ceiling was inserted at a relatively late stage in the rebuilding of the house, in order to conform with the latest ideas of comfort and fashion then being diffused from the Loire valley; the beams of this ceiling were clumsily inserted, several resting awkwardly on window lintels, suggest a last-minute change in plans. The rear cuisines provided dates within the ranges of 1472–91, 1466–85 and 1457–70. It rather looks as if we are here dealing with several periods of felling. These rear kitchens were thus either built, or rebuilt, in the second half of the fifteenth century, perhaps in more than one phase. Of the chambres, those over the rear cuisines yield a felling date within the range 1581–8 which might suggest a period of renovation, perhaps following dilapidation during the Wars of Religion when Le Bois Orcan was sacked by the duc de Mercoeur’s men in 1589.27 Other chambres yield dates of 1494–1513, 1495–1514, 1497– 1516, 1488–1501, 1500–09 and 1505–08. It is thus certain that the construction of the chambres in their present form followed the completion of the salles and dates to the early years of the sixteenth century. The communs are largely contemporary with the rebuilding of the residence but are evidently not wholly of one build. Beams yield dates of 1461–68, 1493–9, 1473–92, 1460–79, 1490–1509 and 1503–19. Construction of the communs thus took place simultaneously with the reconstruction of the house and whilst much of the work falls into the second half of the fifteenth century, the structures as we see them were not complete until about 1520. The late sixteenth century saw Le Bois Orcan (erected into a castellany in 1583) pass by the marriage of Marguerite Thierry (d. 1631) to the family of Angennes, barons of Poigny. Almost a century later, in 1660, it passed on the marriage of Marguerite d’Angennes – this time as dower – to Jacques de Morais, comte de Brezolles. There is some heraldic evidence to suggest that there was a refurbishment of the manor at this point, its then physical appearance being recorded by a painting on the chimney hood in the second seigneurial chambre on the first floor.28 An aveu on the death of the couple’s son in 1692 provides a fair description of the grand corps de logis and its surroundings; further eighteenth-century aveux also survive. Sold twice in this period, it was valued at 9998 l 3s 7d in 1765;29 René-Joseph Le Prestre, the last sire du Bois Orcan died in 1802 after which the manor suffered much neglect

LE BOIS ORCAN, NOYAL-SUR-VILAINE, ILLE-ET-VILAINE This is an extremely complex multi-period site, the secrets of which have yet fully to be unravelled; however, much progress has been made and numerous dates for the oak beams in both the main house and the communs have emerged from our analyses. We identify at least twelve phases of construction, modification and renovation, not all of which can be securely related to either the dendrochronology or the documentary evidence.23 Although the Orquant family from whom the manor derives its name may be traced back to the beginning of the fourteenth century,24 it is on the death of Jean Orquant in 1398 that the first direct connection with the present site can be established. It is to this period that the four chamfered beams, now in the communs, and of which one dates from the years 1376–95, belong; they may have originally been in an earlier residence on the site. The minu of Jean’s possessions drawn up shortly afterwards shows him holding ‘Le herbregement et mesons du Boais Orquant ensemble o le herbregement et mesons de la mestairie’.25 Jean left a sister, Jeannette as his heiress, and she took the manor to her husband Alain du Pé, who in 1407 presented an aveu on behalf of their children mentioning ‘Le herbergement dou Boais Orquant la ou a present est scisse la meson neuffve’. A document in 1458 refers to la salle at Le Bois Orcan and two years later it is called a manoir. Acquired by the famous Rennais financier, Julien Thierry c 1475,26 major building work was undertaken in the years around 1500. We have a plethora of dates for this period: two beams of the salle basse fall within the years 1483–1502 and 22

ACA, 53 J 12. Work began with the construction of the chapel in 1652 for Vincent Le Chevoir (d 1653) but by 1656 major work was needed on ‘le pignon donnant sur le jardin de la maison principalle du chateau’ and in 1659 a contract for rebuilding ‘le pignon du bas bout du Grenier au dessus de la salle dud. chateau’ was agreed, which provides a mass of information on the timber and other materials used. The date-range for the felling of the trees of the new timber-work of the salle haute is 1655–9. The devis of 1659 states unambiguously that the lord was required to provide oak trees ready felled for the carpenters. Not only does this provide firm evidence for the use of oak trees from the domaine, it also confirms that carpenters of the period (as they have always done) worked with green oak and that the time-interval between felling and the use of the timber for construction was generally only of one or two years. A room-by-room description of the ‘château’ survives from 1727 (ACA, 53 J 1). Meirion-Jones and Jones 1995a; MeirionJones, Jones et al ‘Coadélan en Prat, Côtes-d’Armor’, forthcoming. 23 Meirion-Jones et al 2000. 24 AD de la Loire-Atlantique (cited as ALA), E 22 no 62, 9 March 1307 quittance of Jehannot, son and heir of Michel Orquant. The death of Guillaume Orcant civis Rhedonensis in 1335 was commemorated annually at the convent of the Franciscans of Rennes on 16 June (Bourdeat and Bourde de La Rogerie 1927, 128). 25 ALA, B 2141/1 from which, unless otherwise stated, details on the descent are derived. 26 AIV, 2 El 217, 9 January 1476, rents purchased by Julien Thierry, sire du Boisorcant, apparently the earliest record of his lordship.

27

28

29

134

Jouön des Longrais 1911–12, 178–83, 233–8, 250–2 and 271–2 for the sacking of Le Bois Orcan. See also Guillotin de Corson 1897 for the later history of Le Bois Orcan. The arms displayed are those of Angennes (Sable a saltire argent) and Morais (Or six annulets sable, 3, 2, 1) (Potier de Courcy 1970, i, 11 and ii, 299). Guillotin de Corson 1897, citing AIV, B 507, when there were still ten métairies attached to the manor.

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany until recent times, although there was considerable nineteenth-century refurbishment and repair.

fourteenth century. Whilst firm evidence is lacking, on balance we now favour placing the construction in the period 1300–1350.37 By 1446 it was another Geoffroy de Quédillac, perhaps a son but more likely a grandson, who was lord of Taden, and his successors are noted as holding the manor of La Grand’Cour until the mid sixteenth century.38 After the Quédillac, Taden was held successively by the families of Le Voyer, Vaucouleurs and the Marot, sires des Alleux, for whom it was raised to a castellany (1633), a vicomté (1644) and finally a comté (1683). An important aveu describing the manor in 1552 has recently come to light, which provides much detail on the location of other buildings in the manorial complex now destroyed.39 It is a matter of considerable regret that the many samples of timber which we have been able to take from this structure at the time of the recent rebuilding of the roof fail to date owing to the fact that most of the timber has too few growth-rings to permit dating with present techniques. Several beams, however, attest to the renovation of the structure in the eighteenth century.

LA GRAND’COUR, TADEN, COTES-D’ARMOR Much remains mysterious about the early history of this building, its origins and ownership. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, so Frotier de la Messelière boldly asserted – but without citing his evidence – La Grand’Cour belonged to the Beaumanoir family, perhaps as the distant successors of the lords of Dinan who in the twelfth century enjoyed jurisdiction over the parish of Taden.30 However it is likely that Frotier de la Messelière was misled by a reference to an Eon de Beaumanoir, sire de Taden, in 1378, which on closer examination shows him to have been sire de Caden (Le Tour du Parc, Morbihan), on which we comment further infra.31 In the late fourteenth century the lordship of Taden was, in fact, in the hands of the Quédillac family as it may well have been for some considerable period.32 On 2 April 1387 Pope Clement VII granted permission to Geoffroy de Quédillac, esquire, to establish a chaplaincy in honour of the Virgin and St Catherine and St Christopher in the parish church of Taden for the souls of himself and his parents, with rights of patronage, together with indulgences for anyone assisting in the foundation of the chapel.33 A seventeenth-century source notes that there was still then a stained-glass window in the church depicting a kneeling figure, arms and an inscription stating that it had been founded by Geoffroy de Quédillac.34 The date of the inscription given in this source is 1287, but it seems that, as the papal indulgence suggests, this is a mistake for 1387.35 If it is, as seems highly probable, it would also accord with what else we know of Geoffroy’s burgeoning career: in the 1370s he had served with the Constable of France, Bertrand du Guesclin, becoming one of his favoured lieutenants and even receiving a legacy from him to compensate for any losses he may have suffered in entering his service, and he remained prominent in Breton affairs thereafter, becoming maître d’hôtel of Jean de Bretagne, comte de Penthièvre.36 But whether Geoffroy was himself the builder of the surviving manorial logis, a stone’s throw from the church, we are now more doubtful, since recent re-examination of the stylistic evidence leads us to revise our earlier published opinion that the logis belonged to the second half of the

LE PLESSIS JOSSO, THEIX, MORBIHAN Like Le Bois Orcan, Le Plessis Josso takes its name from a family which once owned it and who were, in all probability, responsible for the defensive enceinte (plessis) which it still retains. But, as with Coadélan, La Grand’Cour, Lesnevé and Le Granil (these two last discussed below), information on the earliest history of the manor is frustratingly slight and it is probable that parts of the present complex pre-date any serious documentary record. This characteristically begins with the réformations de la noblesse of the early fifteenth century. These show that in 1427 the manor of Le Plessis belonged to Maître Guillaume Josso, who in 1433 was named seneschal of Moncontour (Côtes-d’Armor), a post in which he was succeeded by his brother, Pierre in 1435.40 Pierre later held other posts in the ducal administration as alloué of Vannes and Broërec, sitting in the Parlement held at Vannes in May 1451 and giving testimony, when he was aged about 56 in November 1453, at the inquiry into the sanctity of the wandering Catalan Dominican preacher Vincent Ferrer, who had died at Vannes in 1419.41 By 1464 Pierre acknowledged, somewhat conservatively it seems, an annual income of 140

30

The problem of the origins of La Grand’Cour were set out in MeirionJones and Jones 1991, but we take account of new evidence relating to the Quédillac family here. 31 Morice and Taillandier 1750–2, i, vii, of which the source is now Nantes, Médiathèque MS 1693 no. 5; see also below p 130. 32 It is not clear whether Alain de Quédillac – executed as a partisan of Jean de Montfort in 1343–4 – was lord of Taden (cf Du Breil de Pontbriand 1896, 73 and BNF, MS Clairambault 68, no. 41). 33 Mollat 1907, 202–3, no 10. 34 Du Breil de Pontbriand 1896, 73, a reference kindly provided by Madame Thoreux. 35 We know of no armorial windows in Brittany of the kind described at the end of the thirteenth century raised by a modest knightly family, but they were becoming common by the late fourteenth century. 36 Morice 1742–6, ii, 276 (legacy); for his earlier career as an esquire with Du Guesclin in 1375, and later as maître d’hôtel of Jean, comte de Penthièvre and alloué of Lamballe, see ibid, 86-7 (of which the original is BNF, MS Clairambault 91 no 26), 529; BNF, MS français 32510 f 294r and 323v; ACA, E 79 f 39v and 20 J 1.

37

The subjective dating of buildings on the basis of stylistic evidence is fraught with problems. On balance we think that La Grand’Cour is more likely to date to the first half of the fourteenth century, rather than the second half. This interpretation is, however, a tentative one and we await further evidence – and perhaps – dating from our samples taken from the oak beams. 38 ALA B 1287 and AIV, 1 F 717 for this descent. 39 A contemporary copy of the aveu was first discovered by Madame Evelyne Thoreux (ACA, A 71) to whom we are indebted for much other help with the history of La Grand’Cour. We have also now located the original (ALA, B 1287 no 5). It will be exploited fully in Meirion-Jones, Jones and Thoreux, forthcoming, along with earlier aveux for 1450, 1517 and 1543 in the same liasse. 40 Laigue 1902, 820; Lettres et mandements de Jean V, nos 2079 and 2177. 41 Lettres et mandements de Jean V, nos. 2439, 2478; Laigue, 762, Morice, ii, 1565 and Fagès, 38–9.

135

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 l.42 Making generous provision for commemorative masses, ‘en grande aage et longueur de vie’ he drew up an interesting will in 1471, but as lord of Pont du Noyallo (Theix, Morbihan).43 Who had been enjoying the lands and revenues of Le Plessis Josso since the death of Maître Guillaume? In the 1440s there is mention of Sylvestre Josso, lord of Porées, a title subsequently held by his son Jean, along with that of lord of Plessis Josso.44 This evidence suggests that Sylvestre was Guillaume’s eldest son but a minor at the time of his father’s death, when his interests at Plessis Josso were protected by his uncle Pierre, briefly lord of Caden (Le Tour-du-Parc, Morbihan) by right of marriage (as we shall see infra), but eventually gaining possession of his own lordship of Pont du Noyallo. Sylvestre appears to have come into his full inheritance in the late 1440s, though there is no unambigous reference to him at Le Plessis Josso until the year of his death (1467). Thereafter, the succession is clear: Sylvestre was succeeded by his son, Jean whose activities as an improving landlord are well-documented as he expanded and reorganized his estates, eventually dying in 1527.45 The last male member of the Josso family to hold Le Plessis was his grandson, another Guillaume; he was besieged there in 1553 following an attempt to release, from the royal prison at Vannes, an accomplice who had assisted him in a number of serious crimes, including murder.46 The outcome of this affair remains uncertain, but shortly afterwards, Guillaume’s daughter, Louise, took Le Plessis on marriage to Jean de Rosmadec, and it is to him and his descendants that the Renaissance pavillon and other later work at Le Plessis may be attributed. Among seventeenth-century descriptions of the manor, an aveu rendered by Anne de Goulaine, widow of Sebastien, marquis de Rosmadec in 1681, provides much detail on the estate.47 In 1786 Le Plessis was bought by François-Marie Le Mintier, marquis de Léhélec, for 120,000 l.; 48 it remains today in the hands of his descendants. Dating by dendrochronology at this site has been remarkably successful, a large number of dates having high correlation coefficients. The Renaissance additions to the medieval house may be securely dated. One beam of the salle basse falls within the range 1437–56 which, if taken with the stylistic evidence, may be considered as the range of dates within which construction of the salle basse in its present form may have occurred. Another beam, dated within the range 1664–83, must be considered a

replacement. The rear celliers, together with the integral Renaissance apartment above, yield dates of ‘after 1559’ and 1575–82; the construction of this addition to the medieval house may thus be placed in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. In the south-east pavillon one beam dates to 1553– 67 and another to 1582–90; these two date ranges are difficult to reconcile as it is unlikely that the second represents a replacement beam. For the moment a construction date for the pavillon in the 1580s is the most plausible solution. A further date of 1736–40, within the pavillon, must surely mark the replacement of a beam, showing how beams have to be replaced even after only about 150 years. For the salle haute only one date, of 1547– 66 emerges and this must be considered as the date at which the present plafond/plancher was inserted. Our work on this house is not yet complete and it may still be possible to refine some of these dates; while further analysis may indeed yield additional ones.49 L’ÉTIER, BÉGANNE, MORBIHAN This is one of many Breton manors that only occur in record sources in the course of the fifteenth century. The first direct reference comes in 1441 when Guyon de Carné, member of a well-known Morbihan family, commissioner for the Réformation des feux in the parish of Béganne, returned the information that Johannet Bihan was his own métayer at Lestier.50 Tradition has it that L’Étier was originally a rendez-vous de chasse for the lords of Rieux; certainly in 1427 an earlier Réformation for Béganne shows that ‘Le manoir et herbergement dou Bourgpaumier lequel a accoustumé estre exempt’ was held as a fief of Rieux by Eon de Bourgpaumier, sire de Lestier, whom another document of the same date shows presenting a minu for what he held of his lord.51 It is to Guyon de Carné (d 1464), however, that the main corps de logis is principally owed. He was garde des coffres for Jean V in 1436, becoming trésorier of the future François I between 1439–41 and trésorier et receveur général de Bretagne after that duke’s succession, in 1445–6.52 In 1441, as one of the commissioners for the réformation in the parish of Béganne, Guyon acknowledged holding l’Etier and it is his arms that are displayed on the north pignon.53 Subsequently, L’Étier attracted the acquisitive eye of the most successful all those men who placed their 49

Meirion-Jones, Jones et al, ‘Le Plessis Josso’, forthcoming. Laigue, 71; the main modern account is Toscer, 1986; see also Toscer 1993. 51 Laigue, 68, but without indication of source; this appears to be BNF, MS français 22331, 120. 52 Kerhervé 1986, i, 89–90 and Jones, 1996, 137-8 for Guyon’s career. 53 ALA, B 2985 f 449; Laigue, 71; in 1454 as sire de l’Étier, Guyon received an aveu from a Guillaume Josso, possibly a brother of Sylvestre Josso, lord of Le Plessis Josso (Nantes, Archives municipales. II 140), the same year that he came to terms with François, lord of Rieux over certain rents (BNF, MS français 22331, 127); he was still holding l’Étier on 1 September 1463 (ADM, 1 Mi 208/6) and drew up another accord in 1464 (BNF, MS français 22331, 196), but was noted as defaillant at the musters of that year, perhaps he was already ill or even dead (Laigue, 71). His daughter Constance, and her husband François de l’Hôpital delivered a minu for what Guyon held of the lords of Rieux in 1465 (BNF, MS français 22331, 122). 50

42

Laigue 1902, 823. AD du Morbihan (cited as ADM), 231 H 4; for his establishment of a rent of 40 l for the Franciscans of Vannes in 1465, see ADM, 49 H 4. 44 As lord of Porées, Sylvestre delivered aveux in the court of Montcontour in 1446, 1447 and 1449, and Jean did likewise in 1462, 1470 and 1480 (BNF, MS français 22331, 785), whilst Jean as heir of Sylvestre for Le Plessis Josso delivered aveux to the sires de Rieux in 1467 and 1471 (ibid, 133 and 141), from which point he is usually referred to as lord of Plessis Josso. 45 Among Jean’s acquisitions was the étang de Noyalo (cf ADM, E 1410). 46 Lallement 1909, 149–58, which provides a good description of the defences of Le Plessis Josso which still display sixteenth-century artillery features. 47 ADM, E 614 and G 120/2, exploited particularly by Toscer 1993, 304–9. 48 ADM, G 120/4. 43

136

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany administrative and financial expertise at the service of the Breton state in the fifteenth century, Pierre Landais, treasurer from 1460–85, who took possession shortly after Guyon’s death.54 He did not, however, keep it for long: by 1476 it was in the hands of another ducal officer, Eustache d’Espinay, who rendered an aveu for it to Jean II, sire de Rieux.55 Eustache’s descendants were to hold L’Étier for almost another hundred years, before it was sold to Pierre de Maigne, sire du Quenant by the heiress Anne d’Espinay in November 1564.56 A dispute subsequently arose over the sale which had the happy incidental consequence of providing us with a detailed description of the manor as it was in 1579 when it was surveyed.57 L’Étier is a building which we shall treat in detail in a later article for it is much too complicated for full treatment here. Suffice to say that it is an L-plan structure dating mostly from the early part of the fifteenth century. Much early timber has either been replaced or – as in the case of the present roof timbers – is at present inaccessible or unpromising. Thus few timbers were sampled. Nevertheless, it is possible to date a couple of individual timbers. Five beams from the cellar were sampled and three date ranges emerged from subsequent analysis: AD 1339–1422; AD 1426–45 and AD 1622–41. The first of these date ranges fits comfortably with our interpretation of the building as belonging essentially to the first part of the fifteenth century. The seventeenth-century date might just be that of the western extension to the residence.

while in 1383 an Yvon Benoist, also an esquire, was in Eon de Lesnerac’s company at Paris under the command of the Constable of France, Olivier de Clisson.60 In any event this military background and the brief glimpse afforded of the careers of members of the Benoist family in this period is a very familiar one, replicated in the ownership of many other Breton manors; it is not surprising that a family of this kind should build Lesnevé, which the Benoist family continued to occupy until the mid sixteenth century. Evidence from the second half of the fifteenth century throws additional light on their economic position. At a muster in 1477 Jean Benoist, who was still a minor at a previous muster in 1464, acknowledged an annual income of 120 l.61 This places him slightly above the average for gentlemen in the Vannetais at this period, while he continued to expand his landed holdings modestly over the next forty years.62 The ornate late-Gothic door, in the main corps de logis lying on the north-western side of the complex, in all probability dates to his lifetime, though it may have been inserted into an older building. Jean was succeeded by his son Jacques, whose widow Aliette de Dresnay furnished an aveu on behalf of their young son, Pierre in 1534; at the réformation of 1536 Pierre was still a minor living at Lesnevé, as was a métayer.63 By 1554 ownership had passed to his niece, Marguerite Jego.64 Seventeenth-century aveux show that the seigneurie was in the mouvance of the county of Largoët; owned in 1679 by the De Luigné family, the manor had a chapel as well as a colombier, extensive woodland, four métairies, three mills and fifteen tenues, all farmed at the end of the century by Pierre Le Melinaidre, miller of the former ducal mills at Vannes.65 But it is settlement of the succession of Jean Vincent de Quifistre, seigneur de Bavalan, who had bought Lesnevé from Louis Marie René Saguer, seigneur de Luigné, that provides one of the fullest early surveys of buildings of this status that we have yet found.66 For the commissioners appointed to value the property meticulously inspected both buildings and estate over a period of more than a week in March 1719, describing in immense detail the dilapidated state of the main residential accommodation (rotting beams, broken windows and doors, missing locks and other furnishings); the chapel was ruinous, though the colombier was fully

LESNEVÉ, SAINT-AVÉ, MORBIHAN Unlike the family of Le Chevoir, who owned Coadélan and about whom much may be learnt from historical sources (many of them still untapped), the information so far discovered on the first, medieval, owners of Lesnevé and Le Granil en Theix (Morbihan) is exiguous. Most of it is provided by various fifteenth- and sixteenth-century réformations and by musters of those serving in arms. This evidence does suggest, however, that we can take the probable ownership of these manors back, at least to the end of the fourteenth century, even though precise evidence of date sometimes prevents us from attributing a period of construction with complete certainty. In the case of Lesnevé, the réformation of Saint-Avé parish in 1427 lists ‘L’herbegement doudict lieu appartenant a Eon Benoist noble homme’, while under Plaudren we find Blanche de Kernicol, widow of Jean Benoist, holding the manor of La Salou.58 Jean and Eon Benoist appear in ducal records in 1419–20, Jean as a gentilhomme of the ducal guard, whilst Eon was among the Breton nobles who agreed to serve Jean V against the Penthièvre family.59 As early as 1378 Jehan Benoist, esquire, was leading a little troop of soldiers at Saint-Malo – possibly the same man, his father or another close relative –

60

Morice 1742, ii. 388, 392, 436; a Jean Benoist appeared on behalf of Jean Freslon in his appeal against Jean de Beloczac in the Breton Parlement in 1395, ibid 687. 61 Laigue 1902, 685. It is probably his father or an uncle, Jean Benoist, who was constable of Vannes in 1457, Morice 1742-6, ii. 1710; in 1448 Guillaume Benoist was sieur de Lesnevez, Laigue 1902, 683. 62 In 1514 reference was made to his acquisition of the manor and métairie of Fontemmont within the last six years, together with a metairie in the bourg of Saint-Avé, while at Plaudren Jean held a métairie at Le Gornay, Laigue 1902, 464 and 687. 63 ADM, 21 G 1 (1534); Laigue 1902, 689 (1536); by 1554 Aliette was married to Jean Le Dounedavy, seigneur de Conleau (ADM, E 2659 no 190). 64 ADM, E 2673, 24 April 1554, homage by Jullien Jego, seigneur de Pradrouetz as tuteur for his daughter, Marguerite Jego, dame de Lesnevé for what she held of Guy, comte de Laval as seigneur de Largoët, in succession to her uncle. 65 ALA, B 2324/4 (1689), B 2351 f 173v (1694); ADM, E 2675 (1694); cf Gallet 1983, 551. 66 ADM, B 632, ‘Grand et prise de la maison et manoir noble de Lesnevé’ (1719), 20 fos.

54

ALA, B 4 f 84v. BNF, MS français 22331, 140 (1476) and 132 (1478). 56 ADM, 1 Mi 208/6. 57 Toscer 1993. 58 Laigue 1902, 683 and 453. 59 Morice 1742, ii. 1061, 1069. 55

137

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 operative.67 We cannot dwell on this fascinating document: for present purposes, the main point to make is that much of what it describes can still be verified by close inspection of the site. The manorial complex comprises two principal residential structures, the chief of which, facing north, stands inside the main enclosure, access to which was through a large and impressive gatehouse on the eastern side of the court; the second lies immediately outside the gatehouse, perpendicular to it, flanking the access route from the valley below. It is this latter residential block which has been the subject of our recent studies and of dendrochronological dating. Our current interpretation of this structure, pending completion of detailed analysis of the whole ensemble, is that it is almost certainly to be explained as a chamber-block intended either for guests or for members of the family for whom no accommodation was available inside the main enclosure.68 We return below to the social implications of this chamber-block in particular, and to the status of this and other manorial domestic buildings in general. Here we are inclined to think that provision of a guest range was the original intention; not only is a fine chamber-block on three levels provided, but so too an adjacent hall almost certainly provided with a chamber-gallery and, down-slope, provision for stabling. The 1719 survey shows that by then, this part of the manor had been seriously downgraded in status, being relegated to agricultural use throughout, with the chamberblock in occupancy by a veuve-métayère, and the guestrange also housing both a family and domestic animals.69 67

68

69

Decadence is also evident in that, whilst the ground-floor unit of the chamber-block functions as a single-cell dwelling, the upper chambres – provided with a latrine, wall cupboards and an evier of fine quality – are described as greniers. Nevertheless, the former importance of the range is still strikingly clear from the regularity of the original façade with its repeated pattern of door and window. In this respect, it has a parallel in the guest range which we have interpreted at Kernac’hriou (Ploudaniel, Côtes-d’Armor).70 Our first attempts to date this building were on stylistic grounds, on the basis of both the trefoil-headed windows and the chimney-pieces, and led us to place it c 1400 or even earlier. Analysis of samples of oak beams within the building, however, have yielded several dates. Two beams in the ground-floor unit of the western block date within the ranges 1475–94 and 1477–97; taken together these suggest a felling date for these timbers within the range AD 1477–94. In the chambre immediately above, at first-floor level, date-ranges from four beams were, respectively, 1473–93, 1475–84, 1463–82 and 1464–83, suggesting a combined felling range of AD 1476–82. In the uppermost chambre, the open roof-truss yielded two dates: 1441–60 and 1439–58. A combined felling range of AD 1441–58 for the truss as a whole is proposed. There is thus a significant difference in the dates for the single roof-truss and those of the beams in the rooms below, and both are later – by up to a century – than the date of c 1400 or earlier initially proposed on the basis of the subjective examination of stylistic evidence. This is a problem that awaits solution when our study of Lesnevé is complete. The matter is further complicated in that none of – the admittedly poor-quality – beams in the adjacent groundfloor hall proved to be datable. On the basis of architectural and archaeological evidence, however, we feel certain that this ‘hall’ – open to the roof originally – was provided with a gallery at the lower end and was also intended for use as guest accommodation, two doorways being provided to facilitate division into two units by internal partition or curtain, each with independent access.71

ADM, B 632, ‘Grand et prise de Lesnevé’, fos 2r–5r, for the main corps de logis, gatehouse, chapel and gardens to north-west and south side of the manor. Blair 1993 for a full discussion of the significance of the concept of ‘hall’ and ‘chamber-block’. ADM, B 632, ‘Grand et prise . . . de Lesnevé’, fos 6r–7r for the chamber-block and guest-range: ‘Metairie de la Porte exposé au Nord consistante premierement en un pavillon construitt de pierre de taille et couverte d’ardoises avec sa porte et trois fenestres, lambas est la demeurance de la Veuve Perodo metayere, sa cheminée au bout du couchant, sa fenestre au deriere garnie de ses poutreaux et enterrassé, audessus est ung grenier servy par un degré de pierre de taille a visse avec ses fenestres devant et deriere à quatre batans de nulle valeur, ceux du Nord cependant servans, au coin duquel grenier est une latrine, dans la muraille du midy est une dalle en fonsée et un poutreau estampé, et audessus par le mesme degré à visse est un autre grenier avec sa cheminee au pignon du levant avec ses fenestres au devant et derriere, la boisure dycelle vieille et cependant servante, garny d’une paire de fermes, quatre filieres et un feilte et une lucarne au couchant sans fermetures et deux dalles au pignon du levant, et sa porte garnye de vieille ferme, cependant servans, contenante de longueur par le devant trante piedz, en laize dixneuf et de hauteur vingt huit sous couverture, fondemens comprise et lesdiffice thoisé consideré et reduit à fondz prise à rante anuelle – 35 l. Au levant du pavillon cy devant et y joignant est un corps de maison construit de massonail et couverte en paille avec trois portes toutes d’eux lucarnés et trois petites fenestres construites de pierre de taille, la primiere estre vers le pavillon est une estable avec deux poutres enterrassés et grenier a fonsage audessus servy par une eschelle seullement, au second estre est la demeure de Jan Carahez metayer avec sa cheminée fenestre au deriere, garnies de poutreaux, madriers et terrassés avec sa dalle quy fait separation de l’étable cy devant et en surplus par une creche à boeufve au bout de laquelle vers le levant est une petite chambre avec sa fenestre au le deriere et grenier au dessus comme devant, a la troisieme porte vers le levant est une estable separé de muraille garny de trois poutres en vieille terrassé et grenier audessus, le dernier etre vers le levant avec trois poutres sans doublure, le tout de pareilaraie depuis le pavillon, contenant de longueur quatre vingts et cinq

LE GRANIL, THEIX, MORBIHAN Le Granil was owned in the later middle ages by families that boasted a record of military and other service to the dukes of Brittany, but whose economic and political importance is more evident than that of the Benoist of Lesnevé. Once again it is the 1427 réformation which first definitely links Le Granil with its earliest known owners, stating that in the village of Roz en Theix, ‘Le manoir de Guazeneil appartenant a Jehan Le Baron noble et y a metayer exempt’. He is probably to be identified with Jean Baron ‘gourme de chambre’ of the household of Jean V’s children in 1421;72 even earlier, in 1404, Raoul Baron was ‘sommelier de Chandelerie’ in Jean V’s own household with piedz, en laize de dix neuf et une quart et hauteur dix pieds et un quart aussy reduit à fondz prisé à rante la somme de vingt livres’. 70 Jones et al 1989, 90–1. now (2002) sadly demolished. 71 Meirion-Jones and Jones, ‘Lesnevé en Saint-Avé, Morbihan’, forthcoming. 72 Laigue 1902, 820; Morice 1742, ii, 1085.

138

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany a salary of 20 l. per annum.73 Whether he and Jean were related, perhaps father and son, and how they may be linked with Alain Baron, who rendered homage to Jean, vicomte de Rohan in 1396 or Hervé Baron who mustered with Jean de Penhouët, admiral of Brittany in 1420, we cannot at present determine.74 There is then a gap in knowledge of the family until we meet Maître Alain Le Baron acting as ‘tuteur de la dame de Graneil’ in 1477, though he failed to appear for a muster; in 1471 he had been a witness to the will of Pierre Josso. In 1491 the seigneurs du Plessis-Josso and Le Granil came to an accord over their respective rights in the Étang de Noyalo, which Le Granil overlooks.75 The 1477 muster indicates an annual income for Marguerite Le Baron, dame de Granil of 200 l.; the same value was confirmed in 1481 when Mr Alain Le Baron was still her tuteur, although she was then married to Jean de Champballon, one of the fifty men-at-arms of the ducal household.76 In 1487 he became captain of Guérande and in 1490 was sent as ambassador to England by Duchess Anne. In the following year his ducal pension was an impressive 400 l. per annum, an amount still apparently being drawn in 1509.77 The 1536 réformation shows ‘Grazenil au sieur de Chamballan’, whilst as late as 1602 Paul de Chamballon, seigneur de Granil rendered an aveu to the bishop of Vannes.78 The pattern of not inconsiderable income from landed estates, linked to salaries and other rewards derived from public service, furnishing the means for the late medieval Breton noblesse to build and inhabit impressive manors is one that constantly recurs as we investigate the social background of those who owned the buildings we are studying.79 This structure, leaving aside the later Renaissance additions, is almost as difficult to interpret as Lesnevé but, we believe, quite different in that the earliest unit is a ground-floor hall, which is open to the roof (of which the timber-work survives though it offers too few growth-rings for dating purposes) and is provided with a gallery at the lower end. This hall may, or may not, have been provided with a separate (adjacent or detached) chamber-block. At a subsequent date a new ground-floor hall with attached chamber-block was built on to the end of the earlier hall. We thus have the rather curious phenomenon of a manor with, seemingly, two ground-floor halls each open to the roof. The open trusses of the second hall also survive but they also are of too slender a scantling to yield sufficient rings for dating purposes. Both halls were later ceiled and the beams of the second, later, hall yield dates within the ranges AD 1608– 27; 1435–54; and 1492–1511. These date ranges span over 150 years and it is difficult to draw any conclusion other than that they may all be reused. An alternative possibility is

that that the latest of the three might indicate the date of the insertion of the ceiling into this originally open hall. A seventeenth-century date is entirely consistent with accumulated evidence for a period of refurbishing of previously open halls in the region, by the insertion of a plafond/plancher from c 1500 extending to 1660 and beyond. In any event by 1682, after a legal battle over ownership dating back some thirty years, when the manor was probably much neglected, urgent and major repairs were required to the halls and the attached chamber-block, as the opinions of expert witnesses called in to assess the costs reveal.80 Among the most pressing problems was rebuilding of the south-facing wall of the second hall, attention to its junction with the chamber-block, and considerable re-roofing of this part of the manor, besides minor repairs like the replacement of doors, window-frames and shutters in the halls and kitchen.81 Some of these repairs are still evident in the fabric of the building. In the chamber-block of Le Granil, two chambres lie over a semi-sunken cave. In the lower of the two, analysis of ceiling beams yields dates of 1429–48 and 1432– 51; a contemporary felling date of 1432–48 is suggested. The uppermost chambre yielded one date within the range 1437–56. Within the roof space a single beam sampled yielded a date within the range 1544–62 which, in the light of the earlier range of dates, may be taken to represent a renewal of timber in the mid sixteenth century. We suggest a felling date within the range 1437–48 provides a clear indication that the latest phase of medieval building at Le Granil certainly occurred within this period. It may thus be attributed to the Le Baron family.82

80

For a period held by the Fouquet family, by letters of Louis XIV, 11 August 1682, Le Granil was adjudged to belong to Catherine de Kergozou, wife of René Monneraye, seigneur de la Meslès, advocate in the Parlement de Bretagne. She was to get Le Granil, ‘consistante en un grand corps de logis basty de pierres massonail composé de salle basse, cuisine, cabins, chambres haulte, grenier au superficie couverte d’ardoise et scellier, escuries, estables, granges et tous autres edifices’. (ADM, E 1410). ibid, B 495, for the ‘Proceix verbal de l’Etat des reparacions de la maison du Granil’, 9 January 1682. Le Granil owed a rent of 53½ perées of rye to the bishop of Vannes for much of the century (ADM, 44 G 1). 81 ADM, B 495, ‘Proceix’, f 2v, repairs to ‘La petite chambre haulte quy est au boult de la moictié de la maison du Granil et laquelle moictié est pour aller au grenier’ [estimated at 20 l]; for carpentry ‘quy est au dessus de la porte cocheir lequel est sur le point de tomber’ – 10 l; for making new ‘les deux panneaux de bas de la fenestre de la cuisine quy donne sur la cour’ – 6 l; Master mason J. Bachelin said that ‘la longere du Granil corps de logix entre le fenestre de la Salle et la porte de la cuisine que la muraille est panchées du boutrie dernier y une toize’ and immediate repair was necessary [estimate 20 l]; f 3r, ‘Et a l’autre coste de la maison vers la midi a la petite chambre […] la longere est coulvriniée et au boulte et quite la pignon’ [estimate 60 l]; for work above little the ‘porte cocheir’ [estimate 10 l]; for tiling on the south of maison, 90 l; f 3v, for couverture of the ‘corps de logix au proche du pignon’, 70 l [Unfortunately, given the poor state of this document and the way in which details are set out, it is impossible to arrive at a total of the estimated costs for the whole refurbishment of the manor but it clearly represented a considerable sum.] 82 Meirion-Jones and Jones, forthcoming: ‘Le Granil en Theix, Morbihan’.

73

ibid, ii, 738. ibid, ii, 669 and 1016. 75 Laigue 1902, 824; ADM, 231 H 4 (1471); ADM, E 1410 (1491). 76 Laigue 1902, 824-5, identifies Marguerite as the daughter of Jean Le Baron and Françoise de Bourne, and wife of Jean de Chamballan/Champballon, sire de la Ricardaye en Rieux ‘de la maison du duc’. 77 Morice 1742, iii, 388, 437, 537, 539, 576, 658–60, 725. He remained among the fifty gentlemen of the Queen’s guard after 1491 (ibid, 805, 889 (1509); ALA, E 214/41 f. 9r). 78 Laigue 1902, 826 (1536); ADM, E 1410 (1602). 79 Jones 2000 ; Jones and Meirion-Jones 2002. 74

139

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

CADEN, LE TOUR-DU-PARC, MORBIHAN

her marriage to Pierre de Cancoët, sire de Brossais, and after her death without children, to his proctor, Michel Le Pennec, sire de Lauvergnac (1478).90 Michel had a powerful patron since he was Maître d’Hôtel of Dowager Duchess Isabeau d’Écosse, widow of François I.91 Both he and other members of his family, including his brother, Mr Pierre Le Pennec were prominent at the ducal court and played a part in the confused politics of the duchy during the Wars of Independence, the latter being particularly involved in a plot in 1492 to deliver fortresses to Henry VII of England, whence he fled in exile after its failure.92 In 1493, describing himself as very old and a widower, Michel Le Pennec drew up a will in which he divided his properties between his two sons, Jean and François. Jean as the elder was to get his principal lands, but François got his acquisitions, including the manor and métairie of Caden, which he was to hold as a jouveigneur, that is as a cadet holding a separate lordship in perpetuity but owing feudal allegiance to his elder brother and his heirs.93 It was his descendant, Tristan Le Pennec who provided another informative aveu to the Dauphin, the future Henri II, in 1540, while in 1575, the death of Jean Le Pennec, sire de Caden is noted.94 This manor poses difficult problems of dating (see Appendix, infra) as most of the series from this site were from young sensitive trees, with a large range of ringwidths and great variation from year-to-year. All the timbers except one form a single batch, the most likely felling period of which is AD 1480–94. Both the salle basse and salle haute were therefore built at the same time in the closing decades of the fifteenth century. Our original interpretation of the building was that it might belong to the earlier part of the fifteenth century if not, indeed, to the later fourteenth century. Here, as at Lesnevé, we thus have another conflict between the dendrochronological evidence which – by its nature as absolute dating – is indisputable and the much more subjective stylistic dating. At Caden it seems we are dealing either with a building which is stylistically conservative for the late fifteenth century or – as we are inclined to think for the moment – a structure subjected to an almost complete renewal of its timber at the end of the fifteenth century, for reasons which we are currently unable to explain. What is indisputable is that the majority of the existing timbers date from the narrow period 1480–94 when the manor was in the hands of Michel Le Pennec.

The history of this small manor before the late fourteenth century is unknown. However, it seems to provide a good local example of a general phenomenon noted above: the move from habitation on a motte to an essentially undefended residential site during the course of the later Middle Ages. The manor itself, currently surrounded by low-lying pasture and arable lands, is situated between marshes and salines to the south-east and the bounds of the great medieval ducal hunting park of Rhuys to the northwest on a site which, if the presence of Roman tiles is taken as indicative, appears to have been inhabited since at least late antiquity.83 Aveux from the fifteenth century onwards make mention of the rights of the lord of Caden within the park of Rhuys, including that of being able to take wood for building purposes.84 At a short distance from the present manor, lying within the Pale of the park, in a field bearing the significant name, La Garenne, and alongside another called Le Champ de la Chapelle, may be found a substantial motte, some 30m in diameter and 2m high, previously described as a tumulus, but recently recognized for what it is.85 This, we may presume, was the original seat of the lord of Caden, who is first mentioned in documentary sources in 1378 when Eon de Beaumanoir de Leslay, seigneur de Caden was condemned by the Vicomte de Rohan to pay a fine of 400 francs for an assault on Aliette de Kerguz.86 This Leslay branch of the widely ramified Beaumanoir family remained in possession of the manor in the early part of the fifteenth century: in 1414 Alain de Beaumanoir and his wife, Olive du Val, sire et dame de Caden are noted as having a family of five daughters, while Alain served on military campaigns in France in the momentous year 1415 when it is possible that he fought at Agincourt.87 Around 1430, his heiress Valence de Beaumanoir married, probably as his second wife, Pierre Josso, the future lord of Pont du Noyallo (cf supra), who in the réformation of 1448 is noted as holding Caden,88 though on the death of Valence, without direct heirs in 1459, the manor reverted to her nephew, Jean Eder, son of her sister, Jeanne de Beaumanoir, and Amaury Eder.89 It is an aveu presented on Jean Eder’s behalf in 1462 that gives the first solid information on the constitution of the lordship, especially drawing attention to the importance of its salines as well as its arable lands and vines. Eder, whose main territorial interests lay outside the Morbihan, did not, however, keep personal control of Caden for long, conferring it first on his sister, Béatrice, on 83

An observation we owe to Monsieur Pierre Beunon, who also very kindly made his notes on Caden available to us. 84 ALA, B 2231. 85 By Monsieur Jean Lecornec, as recently as 1985: ex inf Monsieur Pierre Beunon. 86 Morice and Taillandier, 1750, i, p. vii; for a common confusion between Taden (Côtes-d’Armor) and Caden (Morbihan) in connection with this incident, see Meirion-Jones and Jones 1998, 226 and note 28, and also above p. 125. 87 Nantes, Médiathèque MS 1454; Morice, ii, 915. 88 Laigue 1902, 762. 89 ALA, B 2231 no 1.

90

ibid, no 2; in 1479 Le Pennec was in dispute with Jean Eder, sire de l’Aigle et de Beaumanoir: ALA, E 1229. For his possession of salines at Guérande and Batz, see Buron 2000, 63. 91 Morice, iii, 387, 485. 92 cf Complot breton, ed La Borderie, no XVI; Currin, 1991. 93 Wismes 1962, 131–2, from the original in his own collection. 94 ALA, B 2331; this liasse also includes a minu presented by Renée Marie le Marchand, marquise du Cambout, as mother of children by the late Jacques du Cambout (d 9 July 1701), who inter alia held Caden for the late René du Cambout (d 21 May 1698).

140

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany CONCLUSIONS

must have been one of the very first examples in the region. Elsewhere it took time for the new fashion to be adopted; at Coadélan it was not until 1659 as both documentary evidence and dendrochronology demonstrate. At Kerouzéré (Sibiril, Finistère), the uppermost hall was rebuilt with its charpente apparente after the château was damaged in the closing years of the sixteenth century.98 Many of our other dates point to a period of great modernizing activity in the years around 1600. It is doubtful if more than a handful of newly-built houses were constructed after the 1600 with charpente apparente. Chambres too, previously open to the roof were also ceiled and, in general, the ceiling of such chambres may well have preceded that of the halls. This phenomenon is both architecturally and socially of the very greatest significance. Before about 1500 all uppermost halls were – a priori – of charpente apparente; it follows that any residence whose date can be shown to be before 1500 must originally have had an open roof. Architectural and archaeological evidence for the insertion of ceilings may be demonstrated at a large number of sites; we have now added the irrefutable evidence afforded by the dendrochronological method.

ESTABLISHMENT OF DATING BY DENDROCHRONOLOGY IN BRITTANY We have firmly established – for the first time in Brittany – the technique of dendrochronology as a tool for the dating of oak timber used in the construction of seigneurial residences.95 Regional master chronologies have been established and many oak beams have been successfully dated. Problems remain, notably the large number of timbers in buildings in those meso-regions around the bay of SaintBrieuc which, though datable, have so far refused to date. We expect to overcome this problem during the years ahead. Dates derived by dendrochronology have enabled us to add considerable precision not only to our overall dating of a building but also to its various parts; such dates underpin any resulting statement of chronology and evolution. This form of absolute dating has also permitted us to identify and place within a date-span the phenomenon of the inserted ceiling, hitherto unidentified in France and still far from properly appreciated. Archaeological evidence alone has permitted us to identify large numbers of seigneurial residences in which the uppermost hall was originally built with charpente apparente, only subsequently to receive an inserted plafond/plancher, thus obscuring the roof trusses originally intended to be viewed. This phenomenon has its beginnings in France in the years around 1500 when the first great houses came to be built, ab initio, with ceilings throughout; it will undoubtedly vary with time and with region. In the British Isles it is known as the Great Rebuilding and attributed to the years 1560–1642 in central and southern England. We suggest a similar term – ‘La Grande Renovation et Reconstruction’ – for France as a whole.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF FORMER INTERNAL TIMBER GALLERIES In the identification of another medieval feature not yet properly understood in the region, that of the internal timber gallery, dendrochronology has been less successful for the excellent reason that remains of such galleries have long since disappeared; there is no surviving wood to date. When beams do date, they are shown to belong to the later inserted ceiling. The architectural, archaeological and documentary evidence is, however, strong and we are finding an increasing number of cases in which such galleries must have existed.99 At the Grand’Cour the architectural and archaeological evidence is overwhelming and it is probable that the inserted ceiling that survived until the recent restoration was of seventeenth- or eighteenth-century date.100 Similar evidence supports the former presence of galleries at Coadélan, Le Granil, Lesnevé and probably also Le Plessis Josso.

LA GRANDE RENOVATION ET LA RECONSTRUCTION This phenomenon is certainly earlier in the Loire Valley and in Brittany for, as we have seen, it becomes evident at Le Bois Orcan in the 1490s. It might safely be given a provisional date-span of 1490–1660 for Brittany as a whole. Nor is it confined to the houses of the wealthy and the nobility; there is firm evidence to suggest that it exists too at the social level of the maison paysanne.96 The fashion soon caught on in the older houses where owners began to insert ceilings. Not only was greater warmth and comfort achieved, but an extra roof space created (to function as a grenier or to contain additional chambres). More importantly, circulation within the house at the uppermost level was facilitated. We have already explored this theme elsewhere.97 Our dating in many houses shows that the insertion of ceilings in older houses continued well into the seventeenth century. At Le Bois Orcan it appears soon after 1495 as is fitting for the residence of a leading nouveau riche engaged in a virtual reconstruction of his house. His

BUILDINGS AS EVIDENCE OF WEALTH AND SOCIAL STATUS Although it is not possible to deal fully with this important topic within the confines of this paper, a few pertinent observations are appropriate.101 We assert the general proposition that a building reflects the social standing and wealth of its builder and not necessarily that of its occupants. Nothing could be clearer in the examples we have briefly described above. It is also a truism that a very 98

Meirion-Jones and Jones 1997, 181-3. Meirion-Jones and Nassiet 1997; Nassiet 1994 and forthcoming. 100 It is consequently a matter of regret that the salle haute has not been restored as a salle à charpente apparente. The new inserted floor does not accord with the lucarnes, or with the stone stairway at the lower end the original function of which was to provide access to an external hourde, clearly showing that no such floor existed in the original building. 101 Jones 2000 and Jones and Meirion-Jones 2002 for further discussion. 99

95

An important campaign of dendrochronology has recently begun on the castle of Trémazan, Landunvez, Finistère; see Bernard 2000. This is a theme which we intend to explore in a future publication. 97 Meirion-Jones, Jones and Pilcher 1995a. 96

141

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

large number of seigneurial residences in Brittany have, notably during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, descended the social scale to the level at which they have come to be occupied by tenants and peasant farmers, a phenomenon already evident in some instances well before 1789. There are many reasons for this phenomenon, of which the consequences of the French Revolution and the withdrawal of the aristocracy from the active – and effective – daily administration of their estates, is but one. The expertise of the pre-1789 management structures was ruptured, never satisfactorily to be recovered, in the nineteenth century. There can be little doubt that the gradual stagnation of the Breton countryside, socially and economically – and the failure of its agricultural structures adequately to evolve and adapt to changes at a global level during the last two hundred years – owes as much to the absence of vigorous management of estates as it does to other factors, demographic, social, political and economic. It is an irony that the social destruction of the Revolution resulted in the preservation on a colossal scale – but not of its conservation – of much of the domestic building stock of the former ruling élites. A very considerable proportion of this stock of seigneurial domestic buildings has survived to the beginning of the twenty-first century with remarkably little change, to the great good fortune of those of us whose task is now to study and explain them. Tenant farmers have frequently kept roofs in repair whilst doing little else to modernise or alter the homes in which they lived, often using only one or two rooms and sometimes keeping livestock in the former hall!102 Many a Breton peasant has lived in a manor as he would have done in a small farmhouse, and certainly not as that manor was designed to be lived in. That agricultural prosperity which might have led to higher rents – and the accumulation of wealth necessary to permit extensive rebuilding or modernization of seigneurial residences – was here conspicuously absent. Those residences we have described display, without exception, a high quality of style and construction. All possess those essential spatial attributes of the seigneurial residence: the salle basse which served as a communal meeting place and focus for the life of both the seigneurial family, relatives and servants, their tenants and guests; chambres provided sleeping accommodation above ground-floor level, a key factor in the social demarcation of the seigneur from the peasant classes (most of the latter slept at ground-floor level until well into the twentieth century); specialist accommodation in the form of kitchen and cave; comfort as reflected by the provision of wall cupboards, eviers and latrines. These are features which any seigneurial builder intent on construction of domestic quarters within the manorial enclosure would expect to achieve on a scale commensurate with his personal resources. Such structures, whatever the dreams of the original builder might have been, frequently failed to continue to accommodate the upper social classes who might have lived in them as they were designed to be lived in. When we see the extent to which

they had been abandoned by the upper classes by the nineteenth century we might well wonder to what extent many were ever occupied in the style of life for which they were designed. Lesnevé, supra, is most instructive. Already in the early eighteenth century what was clearly designed as a chamber-block with a strict architectural hierarchy of three superimposed rooms had been given over to a métayer. Yet at the end of the middle ages, as we have described elsewhere, there were upward of 10,000 families in Brittany claiming nobility,103 each of whom would have required at least one manor, more than enough to account for the total stock of seigneurial domestic buildings which has been estimated at around 14,000 manors in the late Middle Ages.104 But, as we have also demonstrated, occupancy changed with time; this is a theme which both requires and merits further study. Field evidence survives to illustrate the intense rebuilding activity of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; new structures and old houses were then modernized in such a way as to suggest that their lordly builders were intent on enjoying their properties. But by the early eighteenth century decadence is strongly evident. The causes of this reversal are yet properly to be investigated.

102

103

***** We believe that we have amply demonstrated the value of pursuing a three-pronged approach to our research in which the use of absolute dating complements the documentary record and the detailed archaeological examination of the building. None of these approaches is adequate in itself, although each may be individually informative and intrinsically interesting. It is in the bringing together of all the evidence, in the context of the surviving field evidence, which leads to an holistic approach and, perhaps eventually, to a total history of the seigneurial residence. In the eight case-studies briefly summarized above, it has frequently been possible to identify a particular phase of construction, to attribute it to a particular family or even to a particular event within the history of a family: a fortuitous marriage, or a conspicuous increase in wealth following an appointment to an office at court. In other cases, the dating of a piece of oak timber points rather to reconstruction, perhaps following some cataclysmic event such as sacking, or other events resulting in partial destruction. Ordinary wear and tear is also highlighted; beams rotted at the ends in a wet climate and had to be renewed. It is surprising just how many beams had to be replaced after only 150 or 200 years in place. Exceptionally, we have the delight of documentary evidence, such as at Coadélan, which provides extraordinary detail of the precise work carried out at the date already established by dendrochronology, or at Lesnevé where the extent of neglect and decay is listed in detail. We hope and expect that our continuing research will further illuminate the history and evolution of the seigneurial residences of Brittany as results become available in the years to come.

cf Jones, Meirion-Jones, Guibal and Pilcher 1990 for use of the salle basse at Hac as a barn in the early part of the twentieth century.

104

142

Jones et al 1989; cf Kerhervé in Le Manoir, 39–43. cf Salmon-Legagneur 1992.

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany Details von Bau, Renovation und Baumaterialen die gebraucht wurden, die dendrochronologische Resultate unterstützen und auch verfeinern. ‘Zweitrangige’ Beweise sind zitiert, so dass sie zur Information der Evolution des inneren Zubehör dienen können, wie zum Beispiel Galerien und dem Phanömen des Einsatzes von Zimmerdecken in früher offenen Sälen von circa 1500 an.

ABSTRACT As part of a multidisciplinary project on ‘The Seigneurial Domestic Buildings of Brittany AD 1000–1700’, begun in the early 1980s, this paper concentrates on the general problems of applying dendrochronology in Brittany, and highlights results achieved at eight medieval manorial sites. It illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of the technique, describing how earlier unsuccessful attempts to date buildings in this area of France because of the novelty of the technique, have been rectified in some cases by further work. The dendrochronological evidence is further supplemented by documentary sources relating to the families who owned these manors. In some cases the archival record has further helped to reinforce and refine the dendrochronological results by providing details on building, refurbishment and materials used. Subsidiary evidence is cited for the evolution of internal fittings such as galleries and the phenomenon of the insertion of ceilings into formerly open halls from around 1500.

APPENDIX The dating by dendrochronology of historic buildings in Brittany BACKGROUND Dendrochronological dating is now an established technique throughout most of Europe. It is based on the observation that most trees of the same species growing at the same time in a given geographical area will have similar ring-width patterns influenced by the common external stimuli in the year-to-year weather which they experience. Some more local factors, such as human management of the trees, insect defoliation, genetic variation etc. mean that not all trees throughout the region will be datable, and the methodology still requires that sufficient rings are present before a series can be dated. Over the last couple of decades dendrochronological investigations have formed an integral part of the studies into the history of the seigneurial buildings of Brittany. It was this study that formed the initial incentive for dendrochronological study in Brittany, and contributions have been made by a number of dendrochronologists over the period of study. Jon Pilcher (The Queen’s University, Belfast), Frederic Guibal (formerly at London Guildhall University, now CNRS), Andy Moir (formerly of London Guildhall University) and Martin Bridge (formerly at London Guildhall University, now Institute of Archaeology, University College London) have all been involved in the analysis, whilst Don Shewan (formerly of London Guildhall University) has given immense technical and practical support throughout the whole period. The result of all this work is that there is now an established oak chronology for Brittany and numerous phases of individual buildings have been dated. Some geographical areas have been found more problematic than others and studies of living oaks have been initiated in an attempt to better understand the reasons behind this. In common with other regions, fast-grown timbers with short ring sequences of less than about eighty rings can rarely be dated as yet. As the examples used here will illustrate, when a considerable body of local dendrochronological data has been accumulated, it is sometimes possible to date single timbers, although in order to date a phase of building activity it is necessary to have several contemporaneous samples because of the possibility of storage, re-use or later insertion of single timbers.

RESUMÉ Dans le cadre d’un projet pluridisciplinaire sur les ‘résidences seigneuriales en Bretagne 1000-1700’, initié au début des années 1980, cet article se concentre sur les problèmes généraux relatifs à l’application de la dendrochronologie en Bretagne et met en lumière les résultats obtenus dans huit sites de manoirs médiévaux. Il illustre les atouts et les faiblesses de cette technique, en décrivant comment de premiers essais de datation infructueux dans cette partie de la France, à cause de la nouveauté de la technique, ont pu être rectifié dans certains cas par un travail ultérieur. La preuve dendrochronologique est ensuite complétée par des sources documentaires concernant les familles qui possédaient ces manoirs. Dans certains cas, les archives ont encore aidé à renforcer ou affiner les résultats de l’analyse dendrochronologique, en apportant des renseignements sur la construction, les remaniements et les matériaux utilisés. Une utilisation secondaire est citée, concernant l’évolution des aménagements intérieurs, tels que les galeries et le phénomène d’insertion de plafond dans les salles basses à charpente apparentes à partir du début du XVIe siècle. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Da schon ein Teil des multi-disziplinarischen Projekts ‘Die adligen Wohnbauten von Brittany AD 1000-1700’ in den frühen 1980er Jahren begonnen hat, wird sich dieser Artikel mehr auf die generellen Problemen der Anwendung von Dendrochronologie in Brittany konzentrieren, und hebt Resultate die in acht mittelalterlichen, gutshofartigen Strukturen erzielt wurden, hervor. Stärken und Schwächen dieser Technik werden illustriert, wobei frühere Versuche um das Alter von Gebäuden in dieser Gegend von Frankreich zu datieren, wegen der Technik erfolglos waren, sind nun zum Teil durch neue Untersuchungen berichtigt worden. Der dendrochronologische Beweis ist weiter dadurch unterstützt, dass die dokumentarischen Quellen die mit den Familien denen die Gutshöfe gehört haben, verbunden sind. In ein paar Fällen, haben die Archivsdokumente weiter insofern geholfen, dass die

143

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Throughout these sites, a sapwood estimate that 95% of trees have 9–28 rings has been used. This is based on Jones et al (1989) and may be slightly modified in future years as more data are accumulated. All t-values quoted are based on CROS73 (Baillie and Pilcher 1973). Eight examples, of varying complexity described supra, are selected to illustrate our research in the region. A summary of the dendrochronological analysis for each site is presented here, with some comments on the interpretation of the building in the light of this evidence. Initially, each phase is treated like an individual site, with cross-matching amongst the components of the phase being sought, and a working master curve being dated against independent site and regional data. The timbers dated in this way are then combined into a larger site chronology, and this is used to try and date remaining samples which previously did not cross-match. Any samples which then remain undated are compared individually with reference data in a final attempt to date them. When well-replicated site chronologies have been formed, it is sometimes easier to date shorter sequences than is otherwise possible, with sequences of perhaps as few as forty-five rings becoming datable.

the beams for absolute dating by dendrochronological analysis. The latter proved to be highly successful, not only in providing a succession of dates for Le Bois Orcan but, in turn, helping to reinforce the regional master chronologies on which further dating is dependent. Periods of potential building activity are suggested by archival data. Of significance is occupation of the site by the Orcant family at the end of the fourteenth century; it must be to them that we owe the «maison neuve» referred to in 1407. In the communs is a series of four moulded beams re-used — probably in the early sixteenth century — as tie-beams for the roof, one of which is dated by dendrochronology to 1376–1395. Whilst we have no proof that these beams came from any particular building it may plausibly be suggested that they were removed from the château at the time of a later refurbishment. If that is so then we have a firm date of the last two decades of the fourteenth century for the reconstruction of the house, that almost certainly that referred to in 1407 as the «maison neuve». It is probable that this new house survived for much of the fifteenth century and that significant further remodelling and new building did not occur until after the Thierry family came into ownership after 1475. A further date of likely significance to building history is that of the erection of the seigneurie into a châtellanie in 1583, closely followed by the sacking of the property by the ligueurs in 1589; it is reasonable to suppose that these two events must have led to the need for significant repair and, perhaps, refurbishment. Given the history of this house and the many changes, some destructive, that it has witnessed over several centuries, it is unlikely that all the problems of its construction and evolution will ever be fully solved. Significant questions will certainly remain. This multiperiod château is far from homogeneous; we propose at least nine periods of construction, the present restoration included; if the periods of major refurbishment are subdivided then twelve or more phases of evolution may be postulated. The western end — that of the salles — appears to be more ancient than the eastern end with its appartements seigneuriaux. But these salles themselves result from several periods of change. In our view it is probable that the ‘maison neuve’ is represented by the present salle basse. The salle haute might have been added to the already-existing salle basse circa 1450; unfortunately, existing documentary evidence is insufficient to support such a hypothesis, nor is the known historical context at the time of Placidas du Pé helpful. This is the salle haute, complete with its charpente apparente lambrissée, which has recently been restored to its former proportions. The principal beams of the salle basse we first thought to belong to the nineteenth-century restoration, their moulures being copied from the originals. Dating by dendrochronology, however, provides us with a plethora of dates for the late medieval period: two beams of the salle basse fall within the years 1483–1502 and 1489–1508 from

COADELAN, PRAT, COTES-D’ARMOR Coadélan is yet one more example of a house with evidently early features in which early timber has either not survived or will not date. Sampling at ground-floor level has yielded dates of 1304–16 for the kitchen and 1365–81 for the cross-passage just inside the main doorway (fieldwork and analysis by Dr F Guibal).105 These dates are consistent with our interpretation of the archaeology of the house. That the ‘kitchen’ stands adjacent to an obviously earlier tower only confirms our subjective impression – on general stylistic grounds – that this tower is pre-fourteenth century, probably of thirteenthcentury date and possibly even twelfth century. Coadélan is a spectacular example of a seigneurial building which has evolved over a long period of time. It is to this period too that the present ceiling of the salle haute dates, a ceiling almost certainly inserted in what had previously been an upper hall open to the roof. Samples taken from the main beams of the upper hall yielded dates within the range 1655–9. The building itself was heavily restored in the mid seventeenth century and a fire in 1988 destroyed most of the timber-work of the interior of the early tower. Timber salvaged during the restoration has so far failed to yield a date. LE BOIS ORCAN, NOYAL-SUR-VILAINE, ILLE-ET-VILAINE Detailed fieldwork, including extensive photographic survey at frequent intervals, both before restoration began and as it proceeded, and by measured drawing, was accompanied by the taking of samples of oak timber from 105

Meirion-Jones, G, Guibal, F., Jones, M.C.E., Pilcher, J.R., ‘The seigneurial domestic buildings of Brittany: a provisional asessment’, Antiquaries Journal, 69 part 1 (1989), 73–110, 16 plates.

144

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany which a felling date within the range AD 1489–1502 is entirely plausible.106 The salle haute, as it was in 1990 before the start of the present programme of restoration, was very different in its conception. Our observations are sufficient to demonstrate that this ceiling had been inserted at some date after the construction of the salle haute.107 When we attempt to date this inserted ceiling we are faced with an immediate problem, since dating by dendrochronological analysis of these beams shows that the timbers were felled «soon after 1495» ; absence of sufficient sapwood in the samples prevents our being more precise. Here is clearly an upper hall with an open roof, into which a ceiling was inserted either at a relatively late stage in the rebuilding of the house, in order that it should conform to the latest ideas of comfort and fashion then being diffused from the Loire valley, or at a much later date but re-using timbers brought from elsewhere. Whilst both possibilities have to be allowed, as we shall make clear infra, we favour the view that this insertion formed part of the extensive restoration and remodelling of the house circa 1600. In any event, the beams of this ceiling were clumsily inserted, several resting awkwardly on window lintels, as might be explained by a last-minute change in plans. Such a clumsily-inserted ceiling would, however, be less noticeable when it is realised that this salle haute was sub-divided into three rooms, by the insertion of partitions of timber and clay, during the seventeenth-century renovations. There is one further element which it is necessary to take into account, the form of the roof structure in situ in 1990. Unfortunately, attempts to date its constituent timbers by dendrochronology have not so far been successful owing to the insufficiency of the series of tree-rings. However, both its general form and its fine but discrete mouldings, on the undersides of the principal rafters and collars, are such as to indicate a seventeenth-century construction. This roof structure, which ran the whole length of the château, we thus attribute to the renovation of the building after the troubles of the Ligue. Such an interpretation further strengthens our view that the «original» upper hall with its open roof survived until the early seventeenth century. At the eastern end of the château, the beams of the chambres seigneuriales are superb, both at mezzanine and first-floor levels, yielding dates of 1494–1513, 1495– 1514, 1497–1516, 1488–1501, 1500–1509 and 1505–1508. It is thus certain that the construction of the chambres in their present form followed the completion of the salles and date to either the first or the second decade of the sixteenth

century, most likely to the lifetime of Pierre Thierry rather than that of his father, Julien Thierry.108 Like those of the salle basse these beams are of triangular section, deeply moulded, the necessary strength being achieved by using double beams, one above the other, the two being held together at intervals by languettes. The joists are also elaborately moulded and the interstices between the beams filled with fretted panels. At the rear of the château, under a separate roof, an apartment of two rooms on the first-floor (with access from the stair-turret) stand over a pair of kitchens on the ground floor. Beams in these rear cuisines provided dates within the ranges of 1472–91, 1466–85 and 1457–70. Whilst we may here be dealing with several periods of felling, these rear kitchens were thus either built, or rebuilt, in the second half of the fifteenth century, perhaps in more than one phase. This part of the château, however, requires description at greater length than we can give it in this article and full account must be deferred to a future publication. Dendrochronological analysis of beams in the chambres over the rear cuisines yield a felling date within the range 1581–8, most satisfactorily explained by attributing these beams to restoration and repair following the sacking of Le Bois Orcan by the duc de Mercœur’s men in 1589. Of the communs – or entrance gateway and its accompanying ranges – reference has been made in the context of the archaeological excavations.109 This range is not homogeneous; it represents growth and evolution over a period of at least half a century. The central feature is the logis-porche which has manifestly lost most of its upper chambre, probably during the period of renovation in the nineteenth century which involved a certain amount of destruction; its roof-line has been lowered by about two metres but sufficient of the original carpentry remains in situ for us to be certain that this high-quality chambre had an open roof. Whilst the façade was almost certainly of stone, continuing the stone construction of the gateway below, the rear wall, facing the château can only have been of timber-frame, the mortises surviving in the sill-beam. Detailed examination shows that here, originally, stood only a simple gateway with porte cochère and porte piétonne, similar to that now standing at the entrance to the inner courtyard. It was merely a symbolic entrance of little value to the security of the ensemble. The precise date of this feature is unknown but it is reasonable to suggest, on the basis of stylistic evidence, a later fifteenth-century date. Subsequently, this entrance gateway was incorporated into a three-dimensional structure, the present logis-porche, on to which further communs were attached to the west. Only later were those communs to the east added to complete the rangée. A series of dates result from dendrochronological analysis. Four beams within the logis-

106

We cannot agree with Inventaire Général […], p. 263, that the «traces d’abouts de poutres» on the south façade are to be explained by the former presence of a coursière. That such coursières were a frequent feature of seigneurial residences in the Middle Ages is not in question ; that Le Bois Orcan was so provided is far from evident. In our view these blocked openings, which correspond with the beams of the salle basse, came into being when the building was refurbished in the later fifteenth century and the present beams were inserted, replacing those that had previously existed. Such blocked openings are a very common feature in houses at all levels of society and mostly witness to a replacement of beams. 107 Meirion-Jones, G., Jones, M.C.E., Harris, R.B., ‘Le Bois Orcan en Noyal-sur-Vilaine: une étude pluridisciplinaire’, Bull. et Mém. de la Soc. archéol. et Hist. d’Ille-et-Vilaine, 103 (2000), 67–123.

108

Inventaire Général […], p. 263, observing the presence of the arms of the Thierry family on the lintel of the chimney-piece of one of the chambres, in association with a ‘frise d’hermines et de fleurs de lys’, notes that this must date the construction after the ‘rattachement du duché à la Frane in 1491. We agree, and our dendrochronological dates both confirm and add precision ; we do not, however, agree that this was the work of Julien Thierry for it is more likely that these chambres were completed by his son, Pierre. 109 ibid.

145

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

LA GRAND’COUR, TADEN, CÔTES-D’ARMOR

porche give dates in the later fifteenth century (1493–1499, 1473–1492, 1460–1479, 1490–1509). Construction of the communs thus took place simultaneously with the reconstruction of the house and whilst much of the work falls into the second half of the fifteenth century, the structures as we see them were not complete until about 1520. We shall be looking in detail at the phases of growth of this ensemble in a subsequent publication. Given the difference in dating it is reasonable to suppose that some of these are beams from trees not recently felled. There is no reason to suspect either re-use or more than one campaign of building (except for the entrance façade itself). Thus a date for the logis-porche in the last decade of the fifteenth century is entirely plausible and is consistent with the stylistic evidence of the chimney-piece in the upper chambre. We thus suggest that the original entrance was built immediately after purchase of the property by Thierry (after 1471) and that the logisporche represents a further stage in the evolution of the site, being completed circa 1500. Of the two units to the west of the gatehouse, the first may be seen as the ground-floor hall of the residence to which the upper chambre of the gatehouse belongs. Here, then, we have a residence for someone of rank. Beams in both this salle basse and the building immediately to the west, have produced dates ‘after 1468’ (twice) and 1461–68. Thus the bulk of this rangée is consistent with a building campaign by Julien Thierry in the 1470s. However, at the south-west corner, at the point where the communs turn through nearly a right-angle the main beam gives a date of 1503–19, suggesting that extension at this point may tentatively be situated in the 1520s. The bakehouse which now completes the communs is a later addition and has itself been the subject of modification. Our resistivity survey indicates that there were once further buildings here along the western side. This south-west corner of the communs may thus be attributed to the final phase of the late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century renovation and rebuilding of the ensemble. There is a further series of four beams — to which we have alluded to, supra, their once deep mouldings now much weathered — such that there can be no doubt that they were intended to use as tie-beams in an open hall; they are identified as a homogeneous group on the basis of common stylistic evidence. They have been shortened at one end for use in their present locations but still display the mortises which once housed the tenons of the king-posts and the braces of the open-hall trusses. It is reasonable to suppose that they came from an earlier open hall in the château itself. If this is correct, they can only belong to the ‘maison neuve’ referred to supra and provide a date for that construction in the last quarter of the fourteenth century. Of these four beams, three are contained in the westernmost of the communs and the fourth (which provided the date in the period 1376–1395) in the free-standing house — commonly known as the Maison de Garde — and outbuilding to the south-east of the communs group.

It is a matter of great disappointment to us that of the sites studies, La Grand’Cour is one whose samples present one of the smallest average number of rings. Of the seventeen samples collected in the early 1980s, only four reach the minimum number of rings required to permit dating, all of them representing beams from the ground-floor hall. Only two cores from the same beam cross-date well giving a correlation of t=12.5. Cross-dating against our Hôtel de Blossac chronology provides confirmation, giving t values of 5.0 and 4.4. The beam had no preserved sapwood but was cored at the heartwood/sapwood transition. Allowance for sapwood was made in the range 18–50 giving an estimated felling date of between 1771 and 1803.110 If our more recent sapwood estimates are used, a date falling in the last quarter of the eighteenth century may be assumed. This date obviously represents a renovation of the building at this time and the replacement of the beam in question. During later restoration of the building during the 1990s a large amount of roof timber was replaced, affording us the opportunity to obtain a large number of sectioned samples. Many of these are probably from the original roof structure ( ? fourteenth-century date) but none provided series of sufficient length for dating. This is yet a further example of medieval timber felled for constructional purposes when the trees were only forty to sixty years old. LE PLESSIS JOSSO, THEIX, MORBIHAN This is the most complex building of those presented here. It has been investigated extensively over many years with nearly fifty individual timbers being sampled throughout the building (some larger timbers have had two cores taken from them to extract maximum information relating to felling dates). This has enabled a well-replicated site chronology to be formed which has proved very valuable in dating other sites where fewer samples have been available (as illustrated above). It has also enabled the evolution of the major elements of the house to be independently derived, as well as indicating possible minor phases of repair or reconfiguration. Some timbers remain undated however, and this will be discussed below. Figure 4 shows the relative positions of overlap of the dated timbers, which fall into six groups. Group A has a likely felling date range of AD 1450–64 and includes timbers from the stair turret and the upper room of the maison forte, along with a single timber from the salle basse. The timbers in Group B have no sapwood, and hence no felling date range ; they may actually be part of Group C. Group B consists of two timbers from the salle haute, and one from the second floor of the pavillon. Group C has a likely felling-date range in the midsixteenth century, possibly in AD 1560 if sample LPJ2728M does indeed have complete sapwood. Group C 110

146

Meirion-Jones, G. I. (ed), The seigneurial domestic buildings of Brittany ; first interim report 1983–85, London : European Vernacular Architecture Research Unit (1986), 43.

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany contains timbers from the salle haute, cellar to the rear outshot, the ground floor of the pavillon, and the first floor of the rear outshot (chambre rose). Group D consists of two timbers, one from the pavillon ground floor and another from the first floor of the rear outshot (chambre rose). It seems likely in terms of the building that Groups C and D are in fact a single phase with a likely fellingperiod in the 1560s or 1570s. A single timber from the cellar behind the maison forte (LPJ-MFT012) has a felling date range of AD 1600– 19. A final group (F) consists of two timbers, one from the ground floor of the maison forte, and one from the salle basse. These have overlapping sapwood estimate dates, giving a combined likely felling-period of AD 1651–64. Again, when relating this to the building itself, two distinct phases of building are recognized, with the maison forte and stair turret being basically mid-fifteenth century, whilst the rear cellar, salle haute and pavillon appear to be about a century later, although individual timbers from each of these elements may represent repairs or remodelling of parts of these rooms. The site chronology from this site is very well replicated internally, and has already proved very valuable in dating other sites in the region, as illustrated above. The cross-dating against other sites and regions is shown in Table 6.

two cores being taken from both an arch brace in the second chambre and Beam 16 in the salle basse. Each pair of series was combined into a single sequence for subsequent analysis. Three of the cores had less than fortyfive rings, and were excluded from further analysis. One timber (LEV015) showed rapid growth changes in its 72year sequence, possibly as the result of management of the tree, and it could not consequently be dated. The nine sequences which remained crossmatched well with each other, and were combined into a site master series (LEV) (Figure 1) which was then crossdated against a number of existing regional and site chronologies (Table 1). The grouping of these timbers suggests that all the timbers are from a single batch except the series from the arch brace (LEV0708M) which is from a tree felled a couple of decades before the others. The overlapping sapwood estimates make it possible to refine the likely felling period for the trees used to AD 1477–82. It seems likely therefore that all three rooms were constructed at the same time within this brief period, and that the brace was either re-used from another building, or that the timber used had been stored for some years before being incorporated into the upper chambre. It is interesting that it is the shaped timber which is of a different date, perhaps indicating a local shortage of shaped timbers at this time.

L’ÉTIER, BÉGANNE, MORBIHAN

LE GRANIL, THEIX, MORBIHAN

This building, approximately 7km east of Péaule, provides another example of a site for which few timbers were sampled, but because of the local data available from sites such as Le Plessis Josso, together with a well-replicated regional chronology, it is possible to date a couple of individual timbers. Five beams from the cellar were cored, Beam 4 having two cores taken from it. Core LET001 (Beam 3) contained 152 years. Although no cross-matching was found with other timbers from the site, the sequence does give consistent cross-matching with regional and site chronologies (t = 8.6 vs Brittany 3, t = 7.4 vs Le Plessis Josso) corresponding to the outermost ring (third sapwood ring) being formed in AD 1616. This would give a likely felling date in the range AD 1622–41. The two samples from beam 4 (LET002 and LET006) cross-matched each other (t = 17.2) and were combined into a single series which cross-matches at the position AD 1339–1422 (t = 5.7 vs Brittany 3, t = 5.0 vs N. France). Given that it has 5 years of sapwood, the most likely felling date for this timber lies in the period AD 1426–45. These two timbers from the same structure do not therefore overlap, and interpretation with only two such widely dated timbers becomes very difficult.

This site (approximately 10km south-east of Vannes) illustrates an interesting dendrochronological problem. There is very little cross-matching between the individual series from this site (Table 4). Nevertheless, because of the high degree of replication of tree-ring series in the region – available from previous studies – it has been possible to date individual series against reference data, and to check the suggested internal cross-matching visually using plots of the series. The plots enable the suggested cross-matches to be confirmed, although statistically the matching is weak. This suggests that the timbers may perhaps have come from a number of different sources. There are clear phases of felling illustrated in Figure 3. Samples GRN 002, 013, 015, 016 and 018 form the first phase with a likely felling period of AD 1432–48. This includes timbers from the salle basse, and the two chambres, suggesting that they were all built at the same time, and that this is basically a building from the second quarter of the fifteenth century. GRN003 from the salle basse is a later-felled timber, perhaps from a repair or change to the configuration of the room. A single roof-timber, and possibly another beam from the lower rooms (the lack of sapwood or a heartwood–sapwood transition make the date of felling of this beam unknown) are from the mid sixteenth century, and GRN001, another beam from the salle basse, was felled in the early seventeenth century.

LESNEVÉ, SAINT-AVÉ, MORBIHAN

CADEN, LE TOUR-DU-PARC, MORBIHAN

This building is located about 4km north-east of Vannes. Three rooms were sampled, the cuisine and two chambres. A total of sixteen cores were taken from fourteen timbers,

Caden is another site near Vannes, this time approximately

147

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

16km to the south-east. A total of 19 cores were taken from the salle haute and salle basse. Two cores (CAD018 and CAD019) were relatively long, of 61 and 89 years respectively, but contained a period of restricted growth in mid-series, and could not be cross-matched with other cores or reference data. Core CAD004 contained breaks and could not be cross-matched, and CAD008 was only 35 years long. Samples CAD013 and CAD014 were found to be chestnut (Castanea spp.), they matched each other and were combined into a single series, but this did not crossmatch with the other series. Most of the series from this site were from young sensitive trees, with a large range of ring-widths and great variation from year-to-year, but they nevertheless crossmatched well (Table 1) and 12 series were combined to form a site chronology CADEN. Although the t-values are not very high, this is mostly because of the short overlaps involved, and it emphasises the importance of visual crossmatching of the individual plots. It is quite apparent from the bar diagram (Figure 2) that all the timbers except CAD001 form a single batch of timbers, the most likely felling period for the trees used being AD 1480–94. Both the salle basse and salle haute were therefore built at the same time in the closing decades of the fifteenth century. CAD001, from the beam nearest the fireplace in the salle haute identifies a later repair or alteration some time after AD 1538 (allowing for sapwood).

Acknowledgements Gwyn Meirion-Jones is Visiting Professor of Archaeology, University of Reading and Emeritus Professor London Metropolitan University; Michael Jones is Emeritus Professor of Medieval French History, University of Nottingham. This paper results from work on The Seigneurial Domestic Buildings of Brittany Project by the European Domestic Buildings Research Group (EDBRG, originally European Vernacular Architecture Research Unit) directed by Professor Meirion-Jones, who is also responsible for the fieldwork and architectural survey, including measured survey, photography and dendrochronological fieldwork; Michael Jones is engaged in the documentary work. Professor Jon Pilcher (The Queen’s University of Belfast) was initially responsible for the general scientific direction of the dendrochronology and establishment of the early master chronologies. The project benefited greatly from the appointment of Dr Frédéric Guibal as SERC Post-doctoral Research Assistant, a post he held jointly at the then City of London Polytechnic (now London Guildhall University) and The Queen’s University of Belfast from 1985–7. Dr Guibal’s contribution was of paramount importance at a crucial time in the evolution of the project. We should particularly like to acknowledge support received over the whole period of this work from the technical staff of the former Department of Geography of the then London Guildhall University (now the London Metropolitan University). This has included, not only the provision of facilities for laboratory work in dendrochronology, but also support in cartography, graphics and computer facilities. We owe a very considerable debt particularly to Don Shewan over many years. Andy Moir has undertaken most of the recent analysis of timber samples, in addition to reviewing our earlier work and integrating it into the whole programme. His work, in particular, has enabled us to make great progress in the dating of our oak timber samples. Dr Martin Bridge – who was for some time in charge of the Dendrochronology Laboratory at the then London Guildhall University and is now at the Institute of Archaeology, University of London – has provided invaluable further assistance. We are also most grateful for the essential support of those funding bodies which have contributed to the cost of this project: the British Academy, the Society of Antiquaries of London, the former SERC, the University of Nottingham and London Guildhall University; one of us would also wish gratefully to acknowledge the hospitality of the University of Reading since 1995. Our work would have been impossible without the welcoming support of the owners and occupiers of the properties studied; their interest in our work is not infrequently accompanied by generous hospitality. It is with great pleasure that we extend our thanks to Monsieur and Madame Pierre Riou (Coadélan); Monsieur and Madame Guy Landon, and Monsieur and Madame René Colleu (Le Bois Orcan); Monsieur le Maire and the Conseil Municipal de Taden (La Grand’Cour); Monsieur and Madame

SUMMARY The examples discussed above show a range of commonly encountered dendrochronological situations in various buildings within a limited geographical area. In the case of Le Plessis Josso, a large number of samples can be crossmatched to produce a robust site master chronology which can be crossdated against wider regional data sets. The chronology itself becomes an important dating tool for other sites in the area. Even within this large population of samples, there remain a number of individual timbers which cannot be dated. These probably represent trees which had unusual growth patterns as a result of management, disease or physical damage to the tree during its life, or possibly timber imported to the site from far afield, although there is no particular evidence to support this last notion. Other sites which possibly only yield a few samples, may in some cases be capable of giving dates (eg L’Étier) once a good deal of dated material exists within the region. Complete sapwood has only rarely been preserved in this area, at least after coring, which often destroys the outer rings. Many methods have been tried to overcome this difficulty, but none have proved consistently useful. This has not been a problem in other geographical regions (eg southern England). The sapwood estimates used here may need to be revised in the light of further research.

148

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany vernaculaire, XI, 45–59 Guibal, F and Pilcher, J R 1988. ‘Remarques sur la comparaison des séries d’épaisseurs des cernes des Côtes-du-Nord à celles d’Ille-et-Vilaine’, Rev d’Archéométrie, 12, 29–33 Guillotin de Corson, [Abbé] A 1897. Les Grandes Seigneuries de Haute Bretagne comprises dans le territoire actuel du département d’Ille-et-Vilaine, Rennes Le Manoir en Bretagne, 1380–1600, ed. Mignot, C and Chatenet, M 1993, Paris: Inventaire général, Cahiers de l’Inventaire, no 28 Jones, M 2000, ‘The material rewards of service in late medieval Brittany: ducal servants and their residences’, Concepts and Patterns of Service in the Later Middle Ages, ed Curry, A and Matthew, E, Woodbridge, 119-44 Jones, M and Meirion-Jones, G 2002, ‘The Breton Gentleman and his Home in the Late Middle Ages: Recent research and fieldwork’, Traditions and Transformations in Late Medieval England, ed Biggs, D, Michalove, S and Compton Reeves, A, Leiden, Boston and Köln, 39-57 Jones, M C E, Meirion-Jones, G I, Pilcher, J R 1986. ‘Les constructions seigneuriales domestiques (manoirs) en Bretagne’, Les Dossiers du Centre Régional archéologique d’Alet, 14, 121–2 Jones, M C E, Meirion-Jones, G I, Pilcher, J R and Guibal, F 1987. ‘Bretagne: les constructions seigneuriales domestiques’, Bull mon, 145, 205 Jones, M C E, Meirion-Jones, G I, Guibal, F, and Pilcher, J R 1989. ‘The seigneurial domestic buildings of Brittany: a provisional assessment’, Antiq J, 69, 73–110 Jones, M C E, Meirion-Jones, G I, Pilcher J R and Guibal, F 1990. ‘Un des grands manoirs bretons: Le château de Hac au Quiou’, Le Pays de Dinan, x, 171–207 Jouön des Longrais, F 1911-12. ‘Information du sénéchal de Rennes contre les Ligueurs 1589’, Bull Soc archéol d’Ille-et-Vilaine, xli, 1–315 La Borderie, A de, 1884. Documents inédits sur le Complot breton de MCCCCXCII, Nantes Laigue, R de, 1902. La noblesse bretonne au XVe et XVIe siècles, réformations et montres, Vannes Lallement, L 1909. ‘Un événement à Vannes’, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, année 1909, 149–58 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1990. ‘Un des grands manoirs bretons: le château de Hac au Quiou’, Le Pays de Dinan, 10, 171–207 Meirion-Jones, G I, and Jones, M C E 1991. ‘Le manoir de La Grand’Cour en Taden’, Le Pays de Dinan, xi, 61–78 Meirion-Jones, G I, and Jones, M C E eds, 1993. Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France. Proceedings of the Colloquium held on 24 November 1990. London: Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers, No. 15 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1993. ‘Seigneurie et

Emmanuel Salmon-Legagneur (Le Plessis Josso); Monsieur and Madame Yves Blanchard (L’Étier) the Marquis and Marquise de Salins, and Monsieur and Madame Hervé Frouin (Lesnevé); le Médecin-Colonel and Madame Hervé Beauchêne (Le Granil); and Monsieur and Madame Pierre Beunon (Caden). Bibliography Baillie, M G L and Pilcher, J R 1973. ‘A simple crossdating program for tree-ring research’, Tree Ring Bulletin, 33, 7–14 Baudry, J 1920. La Fontenelle le Ligueur et le Brigandage en Basse-Bretagne pendant la Ligue (1574–1602), Nantes and Hennebont Bernard, V 2000. ‘Rapport d’étude dendrochronologique Landunvez, Château de Trémazan (Finistère)’, CNRS, Unité Mixte de Recherche no. 6566, Civilisations Atlantiques et Archéosciences, Université de Rennes I, Laboratoire d’Anthropologie, Centre d’Archéobotanique Blair, J 1993. ‘Hall and chamber: English domestic planning 1000–1250’, in Meirion-Jones et al 1993, 1–21 Blanchard, R ed., 1889–95, Lettres et mandements de Jean V, duc de Bretagne, 5 vols, Nantes Bourdeaut, [Abbé] A and Bourde de La Rogerie, H 1927. ‘Nécrologe des Cordeliers de Rennes’, Bull. Soc. archéol. d’Ille-et-Vilaine, 54, 113–41 Bridge, M C 1988. ‘The dendrochronological dating of buildings in southern England’, Medieval Archaeology, 32, 166–174 Buron, G 2000. Bretagne des Marais Salants. 2000 ans d’histoire, Morlaix Chédeville, A and Tonnerre, N-Y 1987. La Bretagne féodale, XIe–XIIIe siècle, Rennes Currin, J L 1991. ‘Pierre Le Pennec, Henry VII of England, and the Breton Plot of 1492: A Case in Diplomatic Pathology’, Albion 23, 1–22 Du Breil de Pontbriand, Vicomte 1896. Encore un ancien armorial breton, Vannes Fagès [le Père, OP], 1904. Procès de la canonisation de saint Vincent Ferrier, pour faire suite à l’histoire du même saint, Paris and Louvain Gallet, J 1983. La Seigneurie Bretonne (1450–1680). L’Exemple du Vannetais, Paris Guibal, F 1987. ‘Dendrochronology of oak in Brittany’, Dendrochronologia, 5, 69–77 Guibal, F 1988. ‘Aspects de la dendrochronologie des habitations seigneuriales de Bretagne’, Bois et Archéologie/Wood and Archaeology, First European Conference, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2–3 October 1987, PACT, 22, 85–97 Guibal, F, Jones, M C E, Meirion-Jones, G I and Pilcher, J R 1987a. ‘Dendrochronologie de trois manoirs des Côtes-du-Nord’, Les Dossiers du Centre Régional archéologique d’Alet, 15, 63–70 Guibal, F, Jones, M C E , Meirion-Jones, G I and Pilcher, J R 1987b. ‘Introduction à l’architecture des habitations seigneuriales bretonnes’, Architecture

149

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

‘Seigneurial domestic buildings in Brittany c 1000–1700’, in Meirion-Jones and Jones 1993, 158–91 Meirion-Jones, G I, Jones, M C E and Pilcher, J R 1995. ‘L’insertion des plafonds dans les salles à charpente apparente en Bretagne: un phénomène des seizième et dix-septième siècles’, in 6èmes Entretiens du Patrimoine. Collection des Actes des Colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine, no. 6: Le bois dans l’architecture. Rouen les 25 au 27 novembre 1993, Paris: Ministère de la Culture et de la Francophonie/Direction du Patrimoine, 67– 80 Meirion-Jones, G I, Jones M C E, and Thoreux, E, forthcoming. ‘La Grand’Cour en Taden – II’, Le Pays de Dinan Meirion-Jones, G I and Nassiet, M 1997. ‘Une salle manoriale à Pontcallec en 1520 et le problème des “galeries” intérieures’, Mém Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne, 73, 187–204 Mollat, G 1907. Études et documents sur l’histoire de Bretagne (XIIIe–XIVe siècles), Paris Morice, [Dom] H 1742–6. Mémoires pour servir de preuves à l’histoire écclésiastique et civile de Bretagne, 3 vols. Paris Morice, [Dom] H and Taillandier, [Dom] C 1750–2. Histoire de Bretagne, 2 vols Paris Nassiet, M 1994. ‘Inventaire du manoir breton de la Chesnaye (1541)’, Histoire et Sociétiés Rurales, no 2, 191–204 Nassiet, M 2002. ‘La vie au manoir dans l’Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles’ in this volume Pilcher, J R 1987. ‘A 700-year dated chronology for Northern France’, in Ward, R G W (ed), Applications of tree-ring studies. Current research in dendrochronology and related subjects. British Archaeological Reports, Int. Series 333, 127–39 Potier de Courcy, P 1970. Nobiliaire et Armorial de Bretagne, 4th ed 2 vols, Mayenne Salmon-Legagneur, E 1992. ‘Le manoir breton au XVe siècle: symbole et richesse de la société rurale’, Mém Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne 69, 201–22 Salzman, L F 1967. Building in England down to 1540. A Documentary History, Oxford Toscer, C 1986. ‘Le château de l’Étier en Béganne’, Congrès archéologique de France, 141e session, Morbihan 1983, Paris, 54–60 Toscer, C 1993. ‘Le domaine du Plessis Josso, Theix’, Le manoir en Bretagne 1380–1600, Paris, 304–9 Trenard, Y 1994. ‘Courbe de reference du chêne pour le nord de la France’, Dendrochronologia, 12, 129– 34 Wismes, A de, 1962. Ainsi vivaient les Français, Paris

résidence dans la Bretagne médévale: un bilan des recherches récentes’, Seigneurs et seigneuries au Moyen Age. Actes du 117e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Clermont-Ferrand, 1992, Paris, 439–62 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1995a. ‘Le manoir de Coadélan en Prat’, Association Bretonne. 121ème Congrès à Tréguier, 1994, 78–81 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1995b. ‘Manoir de Kerandraou en Troguéry’, Assocation Bretonne. 121ème Congrès à Tréguier 1994, 88–91 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1996. ‘La Haye en Saint-Hilaire-des-Landes’, Mém. de la Soc. d’Hist et d’Archéol. de Bretagne, 72, 499–518 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1997. ‘Trois résidences seigneuriales en Haut Léon: Kerouzéré, Maillé et Tronjoly’, Association Bretonne. 123ème Congrès à Saint-Pol-de-Léon 1996, 167–200 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1998a. ‘Hac au Quiou: l’une des grandes résidences seigneuriales bretonnes’, Mém Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne, 76, 531–51 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1998b. ‘La Haye en Saint-Hilaire-des-Landes (Ille-et-Vilaine): quelques réflexions supplémentaires’, Mém Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne, 76, 473–86 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 1998c. ‘La résidence seigneuriale en Bretagne: problèmes et progrès récents de la datation dendrochronologique et de son interprétation’, Mondes de l’Ouest et villes du monde. Regards sur les sociétés médiévales. Mélanges en l’honneur d’André Chédeville, ed. Catherine Laurent et al Rennes, 219–39 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 2000. ‘Le Plessis Kaër en Crac’h, Morbihan’, Mém Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne, 78, 527–55 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E 2001. ‘La Grande Mettrie du Han en Roz-Landrieux, Ille-etVilaine’, Mém Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne, 79, 509-45 Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E, forthcoming. ‘Lesnevé en Saint-Avé, Morbihan’ Meirion-Jones, G I and Jones, M C E, forthcoming. ‘Le Granil en Theix, Morbihan’ Meirion-Jones, G I, Jones, M C E and Harris, R B 2000. ‘Le Bois Orcan en Noyal-sur-Vilaine: une étude pluridisciplinaire’, Bull et Mém Soc archéol et hist. d’Ille-et-Vilaine, 103, 67–123 Meirion-Jones, G I, Jones, M C E and Nassiet M 1999. ‘Le château de La Motte Glain en La Chapelle-Glain, Loire-Atlantique’, Mém Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne, 77, 569– 601 Meirion-Jones, G I, Jones, M C E, Bridge, M, Moir, A and Shewan, D 2000. ‘La résidence noble en Bretagne du XIIe au XVIe siècles : une synthèse illustrée par quelques exemples morbihannais’, Bull et Mém Soc Polymathique du Morbihan, 126, 27– 103 Meirion-Jones, G I, Jones, M C E and Pilcher, J R 1993. 150

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany

Figure 1 Brittany : location of sites. Don Shewan

Figure 2 Coadélan, Prat, Côtes-d’Armor. Gwyn Meirion-Jones

151

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 3 Le Bois Orcan, Noyal-sur-Vilaine, Ille-et-Vilaine Gwyn Meirion-Jones

Figure 4 La Grand’Cour, Taden, Côtes-d’Armor, before restoration Gwyn Meirion-Jones

152

Gwyn Meirion-Jones et al: The Noble Residence in Brittany

Figure 5 Le Plessis Josso, Theix, Morbihan Gwyn Meirion-Jones

Figure 6 Lesnevé, Saint-Avé, Morbihan Gwyn Meirion-Jones

153

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 7 Le Granil, Theix, Morbihan Gwyn Meirion-Jones

154

Le manoir en Pays d’Auge: évolution architecturale des logis de bois du XVe au XVIIIe siècle par

Yves Lescroart

très troublée de la guerre de Cent Ans. Parmi eux seuls quelques très rares exemples avaient conservé des vestiges architecturaux des époques précédentes : ne subsistaient en général que quelques éléments maçonnés, comme des massifs de cheminées et des tourelles d’escalier, souvent à l’état de fragments.

Les logis de bois de nos manoirs du Pays d’Auge sont aujourd’hui bien connus, après un remarquable travail de recensement entrepris de longue date par les fondateurs de notre association, Henri Pellerin, Jean Bureau, poursuivi et approfondi par d’autres chercheurs à leur suite. De nombreuses monographies leur ont été consacrées, mais il est apparu souhaitable de proposer à la réflexion une esquisse de leur évolution architecturale du XVe au XVIIIe siècle, discernant les caractéristiques majeures autour desquelles les maîtres d’œuvre se sont plus à élaborer des projets en accord avec les souhaits de leurs commanditaires, sages ou parfois exubérants, dans lesquels leur créativité trouvait un champ d’expression illimité. Nous essaierons de suivre l’évolution du logis au travers de quatre siècles, en référence bien sûr à quelques jalons bien connus. Nous exprimerons sous une forme graphique simplifiée ce qu’auraient pu être les états successifs d’un même logis s’il avait été reconstruit à chaque époque significative de l’histoire. Cette vision sera forcément réductrice, mais peut nous permettre de saisir les grands traits de cette évolution, et faciliter ainsi la lecture de la typologie des logis de bois des manoirs du Pays d’Auge, qui est souvent le fruit de transformations successives dans lesquelles l’observateur peut avoir quelques difficultés à identifier la chronologie de la construction et de ses transformations. Dans cette brève contribution, nous ne nous attacherons qu’à la typologie des logis des petits fiefs qui forment la majeure partie de cette catégorie de patrimoine. Il s’agit d’ensembles élémentaires qui, plus que les logis complexes des vastes ensembles castraux, permettent de mieux comprendre l’évolution de cet art de bâtir, pour cette seule fonction d’habitat, en soulignant cependant ce qu’elle doit – en terme de symboles – aux caractères de la grande architecturale seigneuriale. Cette étude se limitera uniquement à la mise en oeuvre des structures de bois. Nous n’entrerons donc pas dans le détail des autres éléments, maçonnés notamment, qui sont généralement sans influence sur le parti général de la construction. Nous nous bornerons à souligner l’articulation des éléments de la structure de bois avec les différents éléments traités dans un autre matériau, selon leur propre typologie, notamment les cheminées. Au lendemain de la guerre de Cent Ans, le Pays d’Auge connut une intense période de reconstruction, qui modifia l’essentiel du paysage architectural, et lui donna un aspect qui ne connut désormais que des évolutions progressives jusqu’à la Révolution, en relation avec le raffinement constant des modes de vie, et l’intégration des nouveaux répertoires décoratifs. La plupart des logis antérieurs avaient en effet disparu, détruits à la suite des incendies de cette période

LE LOGIS ÉLÉMENTAIRE DE LA FIN DU XVe SIÈCLE, À UNE PIÈCE UNIQUE PAR NIVEAU Les exemples les plus simples (Figure 1) s’articulent en une masse assez trapue, d’une taille proportionnelle à l’importance du fief et au degré de notabilité du seigneur, développée sur deux niveaux. Une pièce commune, salle à vivre faisant le plus souvent usage de cuisine, occupe intégralement le rez-de-chaussée: la cheminée est implantée sur un pignon, à l’opposé de la porte d’entrée percée généralement à l’extrémité d’un mur gouttereau. Une porte de service peut cependant exister à côté de la cheminée. La salle se trouve plus volontiers à l’étage, accessible par un escalier en vis logé dans une cage d’escalier charpentée, posée dans un angle de la construction, comme indépendante de la structure des façades. Cette conception d’une structure distincte pour l’escalier va parfois jusqu’à prendre l’aspect d’une cage d’escalier simplement menuisée, à panneaux assemblés, telle un meuble posé dans l’angle du bâtiment. A l’étage, la salle, qui se confondait alors avec la chambre seigneuriale, est largement éclairée, plus haute de plafond, et dotée d’une cheminée plus monumentale au décor plus raffiné. Le désagrément que pouvait représenter l’accès par le rez-de-chaussée au travers de la pièce commune, pouvait éventuellement être évité par la présence d’une cloison légère en pan de bois, isolant un passage direct de la porte d’entrée à la cage d’escalier. Au XVe siècle, les salles sous charpente, largement utilisées au cours des époques précédentes, semblent avoir définitivement disparu en Pays d’Auge, alors qu’elles restent en usage en Angleterre ou en Bretagne au moins jusqu’à la fin du XVIe siècle. Cette disposition impliquait l’abandon de la charpente à chevrons formant fermes – dont le parti décoratif semble avoir été aussi important que son utilité fonctionnelle – au profit de la charpente à pannes. La technique de la charpente à chevrons formant fermes resta cependant en usage dans les grands volumes sous charpente, comme les nefs des édifices religieux, ou leurs porches extérieurs, jusqu’aux dernières années du XVIe siècle. Le niveau sous comble est fréquemment utilisé comme volume d’habitation, comme l’attestent les grandes lucarnes largement ouvertes, complétées par de petites 155

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Dans ces exemples, on ne peut plus se contenter d’une cage d’escalier charpentée ou menuisée, simplement posée dans l’un des angles de l’une des pièces. L’escalier en vis prend alors place entre le massif de cheminée et la façade avant ou arrière, dessert les deux chambres de l’étage, munies de leurs cheminées adossées, puis le comble éclairé par deux grandes lucarnes symétriques. La symétrie est accentuée par la masse énorme de la souche de cheminées à quatre conduits, les deux portes du rez-dechaussée à chaque extrémité, et les écharpes obliques que l’on retrouve de part et d’autre des poteaux centraux et des poteaux corniers. Dans ces constructions beaucoup plus élaborées, les fenêtres de l’étage se multiplient jusqu’à être traitées en une série continue, d’une extrémité à l’autre de la façade principale: les poteaux de travée et les poteaux d’huisserie se succèdent, formant le pan de bois de l’allège en croixde-Saint-André, l’appui commun est formé par une lisse continue chevillée en applique , et des traverses moulurées sont assemblée entre les poteaux. Les rampants de la toiture et les grandes lucarnes sont traités à deux pans très simples, aux faîtages soulignés par de grands épis de terre cuite vernissée.

ouvertures en pignon, mais sans cheminée dans la plupart des cas. Cet espace était généralement à usage de réserves. La toiture est alors à deux pans, parfois complétée par un auvent très relevé, permettant d’abriter le pan de bois sur le pignon le plus exposé aux pluies battantes, vers l’ouest ou le sud. Le pan de bois adopte alors le plus souvent une structure à longs poteaux, avec des écharpes obliques apparentes à chaque angle de la construction. Si l’encorbellement est présent – toujours traité selon la technique de l’encorbellement sur sommiers – son usage est généralement limité à la façade principale. L’usage de l’encorbellement a trop souvent été considéré uniquement comme une réponse à la raréfaction des bois de grande longueur et de forte section, et à la nécessité d’étendre l’espace habitable des étages. En Pays d’Auge la réponse doit être plus nuancée: on trouve en effet dans les mêmes édifices des façades traitées à longs poteaux, et des façades à encorbellement. L’argument technique est donc assez faible : le principal avantage était d’éviter le ruissellement des eaux de pluie sur toute la hauteur de la façade, et de permettre une meilleure répartition des assemblages. Quant au gain de place, si l’argument pouvait bien sûr se justifier en milieu urbain resserré, il ne pouvait être invoqué dans des constructions rurales où l’espace ne manquait pas. Il faut donc ranger l’encorbellement au nombre des signes extérieurs de distinction, où la virtuosité du charpentier pouvait donner sa pleine mesure, et satisfaire l’exigence d’ostentation du maître d’ouvrage. Les fenêtres, percées au centre des travées le plus souvent, sont composées d’un meneau – intégré au colombage de l’allège – et d’une traverse assemblée dans les poteaux d’huisserie. A l’étage, les fenêtres sont obturées par de simple volets de bois, coulissant dans les rainures ménagées dans les poteaux d’huisserie, offrant l’air et la lumière lorsqu’ils sont en position basse derrière l’allège. Au-dessus de la traverse, les impostes fixes sont simplement garnies de parchemin ou de papier huilé, dispensant une lumière très atténuée. Ce type de logis se rencontre essentiellement dans des manoirs de très faible importance, isolé, et sans dispositif défensif développé. On le rencontre aussi dans des ensembles plus importants, simplement appuyé sur la palissade ou le mur d’enceinte de la cour (manoir de Tordouet, ou manoir de Querville à Prêtreville), tandis que d’autres espaces d’habitation, beaucoup plus sommaires, pouvaient être établis sur le pourtour de cette enceinte.

LES CIRCULATIONS: LA VIS ET LA GALERIE, DE LA FIN DU MOYEN-ÂGE À LA RENAISSANCE Le dédoublement des plans à deux pièces par niveau a conduit à l’apparition d’une distribution verticale et horizontale plus élaborée. Dans les cas les plus simples, la cage d’escalier est englobée dans le plan rectangulaire du logis, en position centrale, entre le massif de cheminée et l’une des façades. Si l’espace est trop restreint, ou si le maître des lieux souhaite affirmer plus fortement ses prérogatives seigneuriales, apparaît l’escalier en vis logé dans une tourelle hors-oeuvre, sur plan carré ou polygonal. Le palier donne alors accès aux deux chambres, puis au volume sous comble, éclairé par une ou plusieurs lucarnes. Dans quelques exemples, une petite salle haute prend place au sommet de la tourelle, desservie par un petit escalier dévoyé. Dénommée ‘oriol’, cette petite pièce aux fonctions mal connues – poste d’observation du domaine, belvédère, chartrier, cabinet – existe également dans bon nombre d’exemples d’architecture urbaine, à Rouen et Lisieux notamment, mais se retrouve également dans l’architecture de pierre médiévale d’autres régions que la Normandie. Le raffinement des modes de vie s’accommodait mal d’une entrée directe dans les chambres depuis un simple palier, et exigeait des accès plus satisfaisants. L’attention grandissante aux questions d’hygiène exigeait également la présence de latrines. Ces contraintes imposèrent peu à peu l’usage généralisé de la galerie ouverte, greffée sur l’escalier, courant sur toute la longueur de la façade arrière, pouvant donner accès à des latrines en tourelle à l’une des extrémités. Multipliées dans les villes pour assurer la desserte des étages des différents corps de logis qui se succédaient en parallèle depuis l’alignement des rues, ces galeries prenaient aussi une fonction ostentatoire développée notamment dans les dernières

LE LOGIS SIMPLE À DEUX PIÈCES PAR NIVEAU Contemporain du type précédent, il se développe dans les manoirs de plus grande importance, selon un plan dédoublé autour de l’axe de symétrie constitué par un massif maçonné comportant deux cheminées adossées à chaque niveau (Figure 2). Dans ce cas, la façade principale comporte généralement deux portes, disposées à chaque extrémité: l’une ouvre sur la pièce à vivre (cuisine), et l’autre – qui se signale par un décor plus soigné – sur la salle. 156

Yves Lescroart: Le manoir en Pays d’Auge: évolution architecturale des logis de bois du XVe au XVIIIe siècle

années du XVe siècle mais surtout au XVIe siècle, à l’exemple des galeries à l’italienne si prisées à la Renaissance. Ces galeries ouvertes, parfois intégrées au parallélépipède du logis (manoir de Courson), ont été le plus souvent développées hors-oeuvre, comme les escaliers, portées par des poteaux de bois alignés sur les travées, ou plus fréquemment encore traitées en très forte saillie, soulagées par d’amples liens obliques (manoir de la Planche). Dans quelques rares exemples, l’escalier et la galerie sont totalement dissociés. Ainsi au manoir du Désert à Honfleur, où l’escalier s’impose sur la façade principale, couronné d’un oriol, tandis qu’une galerie court sur toute la longueur de la façade arrière, et donne accès à une latrine.

étages sous chaque baie, et qui participaient fortement jusqu’alors au raidissement de l’ossature par leur assemblage entre une sablière horizontale et les poteaux d’huisserie, deviennent, toujours à ce même niveau un motif essentiellement ornemental, reliant la sablière à l’appui, étendu à toute la longueur de la façade principale. Le raidissement de l’ossature est alors assuré essentiellement par des écharpes beaucoup plus courtes, reléguées au-dessus du niveau de l’allège. LE VESTIBULE CENTRAL, DISTRIBUTION RIGOUREUSE DU LOGIS À L’ÉPOQUE CLASSIQUE Les deux portes jumelées constituaient un archaïsme préjudiciable à l’harmonie nouvelle de la façade. Tant que l’une, plus soignée marquait l’accès direct à la salle du logis, à l’une des extrémités du bâtiment, le problème était simple. La juxtaposition de deux portes jumelées au centre de la façade, rigoureusement identiques, n’était plus satisfaisante. Il était également difficile de concevoir le maintien d’un axe de symétrie sur un poteau médian : toutes ces raisons s’ajoutèrent pour aboutir au principe de la porte unique, parfaitement centrée. Cette évolution permit enfin de ménager un volume de transition, distribuant parfaitement l’espace intérieur, en donnant un accès direct soit à la salle du rez-de-chaussée, à la cuisine qui lui fait face dans la plupart des cas, ainsi qu’à l’escalier conduisant à l’étage. La création du vestibule au rez-dechaussée va généralement de pair avec celle d’un palier de distribution à l’étage, desservant commodément les deux chambres de l’étage, et éventuellement celle du comble (manoir de Prétot). L’escalier conserve assez longtemps sa disposition en vis, dans une cage d’escalier qui tend progressivement à intégrer le plan rectangulaire du logis, perdant ainsi sa position hors-oeuvre, et simplifiant la masse de l’édifice. Le principe médiéval de la vis laisse rapidement la place à l’escalier à volées droites, rampe-surrampe, qui ajoute au raffinement architectural du vestibule l’ornement de ses balustres rampants (manoir de la Hogue). Si les volumes sont ainsi épurés, il faut cependant souligner l’importance accordée à la toiture, aux rampants accentués, aux lignes identiques, reprises sur les lucarnes, allégées par des coyaux prononcés, et aux angles soulignés par de multiples épis de faîtage. Les fenêtres sont le plus souvent jumelées deux à deux, de part et d’autre d’un poteau de travée, faisant office de meneau. La traverse disparaît de l’ouvrage de charpente, mais est encore marquée par la division de l’huisserie en deux compartiments inégaux, où prennent place des panneaux de vitrail, doublés de volets intérieurs fixés au vantail (manoir de la Chapelle). A cette époque qui privilégie la rigueur de la ligne, le pan de bois n’a d’autre décor que son agencement. Cette rigueur conduit les maîtres d’oeuvre à préférer un pan de bois strictement vertical, dissimulant sur la face interne les écharpes de raidissement. Lorsqu’ils décident d’utiliser des ornement en croix-de-Saint-André, ils en

LE LOGIS À ACCÈS CENTRAL, AVÈNEMENT DE LA RENAISSANCE Alors que sous l’influence des premiers traités français d’architecture, la primauté était donnée aux compositions symétriques fortement axées, les formules rencontrées jusqu’alors en Pays d’Auge repoussaient les portes aux extrémités des façades, et bloquaient toute distribution centrale par la présence de l’énorme massif de cheminées, sur lequel butait immédiatement le visiteur. On assiste dans la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle à la division de ce massif de doubles cheminées adossées et superposées, en deux blocs de cheminées superposées, repoussées sur les pignons. L’escalier conserve encore sa position centrale en tourelle hors-oeuvre, mais les deux portes sont désormais placées en position centrale, jumelées, desservant toujours de façon très archaïque chacune des deux pièces du rez-dechaussée. La symétrie est donc beaucoup plus marquée. Elle s’accentue encore avec la créations de pans coupés dans les toitures, faisant disparaître les grands pignons au profit des croupes, et surtout par l’émergence des hautes souches de cheminées. Les lucarnes suivent la même évolution, deviennent plus étroites que les travées du pan de bois, strictement alignées sur les ouvertures des étages inférieurs, pourvues elles aussi de couvertures à croupes. L’ensemble des toitures constitue une série de formes bien individualisées, qu’il s’agisse de celle de la tourelle d’escalier (Figure 3), des lucarnes, voire des petits pavillons d’angle (Figure 4) qui commencent à caler la composition des logis les plus élaborés (manoir du Mesnilde-Roiville, manoir du Champ-Versan). Le pan de bois perd quelques-unes unes de ses dispositions médiévales : l’encorbellement disparaît peu à peu, sa structure s’efface graduellement (manoir du PontPercé), jusqu’à la disparition de tout surplomb d’un étage sur l’autre. L’articulation des étages, en tant qu’entités cohérentes, jusqu’alors lisibles structurellement, disparaît peu à peu, au profit des ‘façades-panneaux’, agencées en fonction du seul souci de la ligne architecturale, et des longueurs de bois disponibles. Les croix-de-Saint-André placées en allège aux 157

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

habitants.

limitent l’usage aux allèges de fenêtres. Elles sont alors fréquemment ramifiées en croisillons à branches multiples (Figure 5).

ABSTRACT Timber-framed buildings of high quality survive in the Pays d’Auge, in the heart of Normandy; for the most part they date from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries. The timber-frame logis of these manoirs are witness to a constant evolution during this period. Across a range of preserved examples, it is possible to define a chronological typology with a degree of precision. The purpose of this paper is to define the simplest models and to analyse those plans and elevations most commonly encountered. Carpentry techniques reach their apogee during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, as is evident from jettying techniques. Publication of the first architectural treatises led to a refinement of both volume and decor, to the detriment of timber-frame techniques. Bit by bit, the search for more subtle distribution of internal volume led to the massive chimney-pieces becomes apparent: axially located in the middle of the house and rising through two storeys – which were the rule until the beginning of the sixteenth century – they shift to the extremities of the logis, thus permitting a central entry, a vestibule and access to a stairway leading to the first-floor, integrated into a single volume. The first-floor gallery – accessible from the stair turret – disappears during the seventeenth century to be reborn a little later in the form of a longitudinal corridor in the eighteenth-century logis when the builders introduced into their timber houses the essentials of the volumes prevalent in stone architecture. Thus were the robust medieval timber structures transformed into ‘panelfaçades’, comprising timber-framing of light scantling arranged in geometrical motifs.

LE LOGIS RAFFINÉ DU XVIIIe SIÈCLE La typologie des logis de bois a rejoint celle des logis de pierre, dont elle ne diffère plus, sinon par le matériau des façades. Certains principes ornementaux en sont d’ailleurs directement issus, comme les poteaux d’huisserie et les allèges, reprenant, en bois, le tracé des chaînes d’encadrement opposant la pierre de taille et l’enduit de maçonnerie. Les plans, toujours parfaitement axés, deviennent plus complexes, multipliant salles, cabinets et salons, agencés selon une distribution savante. Le vestibule prend une dimension plus importante, intègre un escalier aux marches parfois gironnées, dont les balustres sont constitués de planches chantournées, voire même de rampes de fer forgé (manoir des Quatre-Nations) – ou si le maître d’ouvrage n’en a pas le moyen – de sa réplique en bois découpé et noirci (manoir du Lieu-Hocquart). Le palier de l’étage dessert alors un couloir sur l’ensemble de la longueur du logis, donnant accès à chacune des chambres à alcôve et cabinet. Il résulte de cette évolution un allongement important du logis pour assumer ces fonction nouvelles. Les maîtres d’œuvre accentuèrent ce caractère en diminuant la pente des toitures, ponctuées non plus de deux massifs de cheminées aux extrémités, mais de plusieurs groupes de souches émergeant à peine du faîtage. De petites lucarnes viennent souligner les travées de la structure de bois. Les façades sont largement percées de larges fenêtres à deux vantaux, vitrées de petits carreaux, sous un linteau généralement courbe. Le pan de bois adopte alors une disposition ornementale à motifs en épis, ou en feuilles de fougère, réservant aux allèges de l’étage de larges croisillons, comportant éventuellement quelques pièces courbes (manoir des Quatre-Nations).

RÉSUMÉ Le Pays d’Auge, au centre de la Normandie, conserve une architecture de bois de grande qualité, dont les témoins les plus nombreux datent du XVe au XVIIIe siècle. Les logis à pans de bois de ces manoirs ont connu durant cette période une évolution constante. A travers la diversité des exemples conservés, il est possible de définir une typologie chronologique assez précise. Le propos de cette contribution est de définir les modèles les plus simples, d’analyser les plans et les élévations les plus communément rencontrés. Le XVe siècle et le début du XVIe portent à leur perfection la technique de la charpenterie, mise en évidence dans les techniques de l’encorbellement. La publication des premiers traités d’architecture conduit à un raffinement des volumes et des décors au détriment de la technicité du pan de bois. Peu à peu, la recherche d’une distribution plus subtile des volumes intérieurs se manifeste : les massifs de cheminées adossées au centre de l’édifice sur deux niveaux – qui sont la régle jusqu’au début du XVIe siècle – sont dissociés et repoussés aux extrémités du logis, afin de dégager une entrée centrale, un

***** CONCLUSIONS Cette esquisse chronologique de l’évolution architecturale des logis de bois en Pays d’Auge n’a d’autre ambition que de cerner les grandes lignes de bâtiments de même importance, et précisément des plus modestes d’entre eux. Elle en dégage des caractères généraux, mais ne saurait prendre en compte les multiples variantes imaginées par les maîtres d’œuvre, souvent sans développements ultérieurs, mais parfois aussi initiateurs de nouvelles recherches appelées à un grand avenir. Elle traduit aussi très fidèlement l’affaiblissement progressif des structures du système féodal, où l’importance de la grande salle seigneuriale s’estompe peu à peu, où les signes distinctifs de la demeure noble, et notamment la tour d’escalier perdent de leur importance et de leur intérêt, au profit de la qualité de vie de leurs 158

Yves Lescroart: Le manoir en Pays d’Auge: évolution architecturale des logis de bois du XVe au XVIIIe siècle

EDITORS’ NOTE

vestibule, et desservir l’escalier d’accès à l’étage, intégré au volume principal. La galerie ouverte de l’étage, accessible depuis la tourelle d’escalier, disparue au XVIIe siècle, renaît un peu plus tard sous la forme du couloir longitudinal dans les logis du XVIIIe siècle, lorsque les constructeurs transposent dans leurs logis de bois l’essentiel des volumes en usage dans l’architecture de pierre, et transforment leur robustes structures de bois médiévales en façadespanneaux, constituées de bois de faible section agencés en motifs géométriques.

Many of the themes briefly discussed here have been developed more fully in Faucon and Lescroart (1995; 1997), where most of the buildings referred to are described and illustrated.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Fachwerkgebäude hoher Qualität haben sich in den Pays d'Auge, im Herzen der Normandie, erhalten; die meisten stammen aus dem 15. bis 18. Jahrhundert. Die in Fachwerktechnik erbauten Logis dieser Manoirs sind Zeugen einer konstanten Entwicklung während dieser Periode. Durch eine Reihe erhaltener Gebäude ist es möglich, eine chronologische Typologie mit einiger Genauigkeit zu erstellen. Es ist die Absicht dieses Aufsatzes, die Grundmodelle zu bestimmen und die am häufigsten anzutreffenden Grund- und Aufrisse zu analysieren. Zimmerhandwerkliche Techniken erreichen ihren Höhepunkt während des 15. und frühen 16. Jahrhunderts, wie es durch die Erkerkonstruktionen deutlich wird. Die Veröffentlichungen der ersten Architekturtraktate führen zu einer Verfeinerung sowohl in Ausmaß wie im Dekor zum Nachteil der Fachwerktechniken. Das Suchen nach raffinierter Einteilung des Innenraumes wird bei den massiven Schornsteinen nach und nach augenscheinlich: axial in der Mitte des Hauses gelegen und über zwei Stockwerke reichend, wie es bis Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts die Regel war, verlagern sie sich an die äußeren Enden der Logis, und erlauben somit einen zentralen Eingang, ein Vestibül sowie einen Zugang zum Treppenhaus, das in den zweiten Stock führt, integriert in eine Raumeinheit. Die Galerie im ersten Stock, welche vom Treppenturm zugänglich ist, verschwindet während des 17. Jahrhunderts, um ein wenig später in Form eines Longitudinalkorridors im Logis des 18. Jahrhunderts wiederzuerstehen, als die Bauherren in ihren Fachwerkhäusern die wesentlichen Eigenschaften der in der Steinarchitektur vorherrschenden Raumvolumina einführten. Dadurch wurden die stabilen mittelalterlichen Fachwerkkonstruktionen in 'holzvertäfelte Fassaden' verwandelt, deren Fachwerk aus leichten Vorblendungen aus geometrischen Motiven besteht. Bibliographie Faucon, R, Lescroart, Y 1995. Manoirs du Pays d’Auge, Paris: Mengès; translated Crook, J and MeirionJones, G 1997. Manor houses in Normandy, Köln: Könemann

159

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 Le logis à une pièce unique par niveau (deuxième moitié du XVe siècle) Dessin de l’auteur

Figure 2 Le logis à deux pièces par niveau (fin du XVe siècle) à tourelle d’escalier hors-œuvre et galerie ouverte à l’étage Dessin de l’auteur

Figure 3 Le logis à double accès central (milieu du XVIe siècle), à tourelle d’escalier hors-œuvre Dessin de l’auteur

Figure 4 Le logis à double accès central (fin du XVIe siècle) à tourelle d’escalier et pavillons latéraux hors-œuvre Dessin de l’auteur

Figure 5 Le logis classique (XVIIe siècle) Dessin de l’auteur

Figure 6 Le logis du XVIIIe siècle Dessin de l’auteur

160

La Vie au Manoir dans l’Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles par

Michel Nassiet

Grignart.2 Enfin des gestes peuvent être saisis dans des sources judiciaires, notamment dans les lettres de rémission, qui commencent à faire l’objet de dépouillements. Il faut évidemment distinguer entre les résidences de la noblesse riche et moyenne et les logis de la petite noblesse. Les premières comprenaient parfois plusieurs3 grands édifices, comme les quatre ‘corps de maison’ du manoir de Taden, dont le seigneur avait, en 1480, 500 livres monnaie de revenu. Les grands manoirs abritaient, outre le seigneur et sa famille, ses officiers et les dames de son épouse; il s’y ajoutait les serviteurs du couple seigneurial, ainsi que ceux des officiers et des dames. Ainsi cohabitaient des individus de quatre catégories. Les chambres étaient nombreuses. Certaines étaient occupées par un personnage en particulier, membre de la famille seigneuriale, noble officier ou gouvernante de la dame. D’autres l’étaient pas plusieurs individus, comme, au Boisorcant en 1589, la ‘chambre nommée la chambre des femmes’,4 c’est-à-dire de nobles demoiselles de compagnie, comme celles qui, au château de Thouars,5 avaient mis leur coffre personnel dans ‘la chambre des filles’. Ce dernier château comportait aussi une ‘chambre des nourrisses’. C’est à la vie dans les manoirs les moins connus, ceux de la noblesse petite et moyenne, que dorénavant nous allons consacrer notre attention. La structure que Gwyn Meirion-Jones appelle ‘logement seigneurial minimal’6 comprenait une salle et une chambre au rez-de-

Nos connaissances sur les manoirs sont en plein renouvellement: tandis que la dendrochronologie fournit des dates précises de construction ou de réparation, l’analyse archéologique rend compte des structures architecturales et donne des aperçus sur la circulation à l’intérieur des édifices. Dès lors, dans ces logis mieux connus, on voudrait préciser en quoi consistait le mode de vie aux XVe–XVIe siècles. Ce ne sera évidemment possible qu’en confrontant les données acquises par l’archéologie et l’apport des sources écrites. Il nous faut en effet des connaissances préalables de base, sans lesquelles toute tentative de reconstitution du mode de vie serait illusoire. Il faudrait évidemment préciser par qui les manoirs étaient habités, c’est-à-dire quelle était la structure des groupes domestiques, et comment le groupe des résidents variait en fonction du cycle familial. Il faudrait connaître aussi les activités économiques dont le manoir proprement dit était le centre, ou même le local, car elles contribuaient à déterminer la fréquentation du manoir et la circulation alentour. Les hommes et leurs activités étant mieux connues, il faudrait alors identifier les gestes de la quotidienneté, et ce, en fonction de leur situation dans les diverses pièces telles que l’archéologie les décrit. C’est à ces trois aspects que nous nous proposons ici d’apporter une contribution pour l’Ouest1 de la France. En vue de ces questions, il faut rassembler des sources écrites de diverses sortes. Dans les aveux anciens, les descriptions des édifices sont très sommaires. Les actes de partage révèlent qu’un corps de logis pouvait être partagé en appartements. Les inventaires après décès complètent les descriptions archéologiques en faisant connaître le cadre matériel mobilier. Ils permettent aussi de déceler, le cas échéant, l’activité exercée au manoir. Mais ces inventaires sont rares; en Bretagne, les premières séries n’en commencent que dans le troisième tiers du XVIe siècle. Nous disposons actuellement de huit inventaires pour la période 1516–88, trois de familles de moyenne noblesse et cinq de petite noblesse (cf annexe 1). Les gestes et les comportements sont évoqués par les journaux et les Mémoires écrits par des gentilshommes. Le Journal de Gilles de Gouberville, gentilhomme se situant dans la moyenne noblesse du Cotentin, est exceptionnellement riche en notations sur les gestes quotidiens; sa limite, on le sait, est de n’être représentatif que d’un célibataire. C’est dans d’autres textes qu’il faut chercher des chroniques de la vie familiale, comme les Mémoires du Breton François

2 3

4

1

5

Sur les manoirs bretons, cf l’ensemble des travaux de Meirion-Jones et Jones. Sur le Perche, cf Gautier-Desvaux, in Meirion-Jones et Jones 1993, 141–57.

6

161

Publiés par Raison du Cleuziou. Ainsi le manoir de Taden, dans la paroisse du même nom, comprenait en 1552 ‘quattre corps de maisons s’entre tenans et habitans, ou premier y a une salle, une chambre basse au bout et une garde robbe, et à l’aultre bout y a une cave et une despance et au costé de ladicte salle la cuysine et sur le tout des greniers, contenent quattre vingtz piedz de longc, et de laize vingt quattre piedz. En l’aultre corps y a une belle et anxienne tours avecques une basse chambre, une passée à aller en la basse court et le fournil et boullangerie, et dessur troys haultes chambres et des greniers, contenent de longc cinquante cinq piedz et de laize vingt et ung pied. En l’aultre corps est la porte par où l’om entre oudict lieu, sur lequel y a une chambre et au bas y a troys estables à logez les chevaulx de la dicte damoiselle, et dessurs les fanneries, contenent cent piedz de longc et saeze piedz et demy laize. En l’aultre corps y a la mestaerye où demeurent les mestyaiers et y a troys estables et sur le tout des greniers et fanneries, contenent de longc cent dix piedz et de laize vingt.’ (Arch dép Loire-Atlantique, B 1287). En 1480, le seigneur de Taden, Robert de Quédillac, avait 500 livres monnaie de revenu [Nassiet, ‘Dictionnaire des feudataires des évêchés de Dol et Saint-Malo [...]’, no 677]. Sur ce manoir, cf Meirion-Jones et Jones 1991, 61–78. En Noyal-sur-Vilaine. D’après un témoignage dans une enquête publiée par Joüon des Longrais, 252. La Tremoille, Inventaire de François de La Tremoille, 1542, 40 et 42. Meirion-Jones et al 1993, 176; Meirion-Jones et Jones, ‘Seigneurie et résidence [...]’, 456.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

chaussée, et à l’étage, une chambre unique lorsque la salle n’était pas plafonnée; cette structure procurait une surface habitable de l’ordre de 170m2. Dans les manoirs comportant trois pièces au rez-de-chaussée et un seul étage, la superficie était portée à 250m2, et même 300m2 en plafonnant la salle. A raison, souvent, de deux lits par chambre, le manoir pouvait abriter un minimum de trois ou quatre lits, et huit dans la moyenne noblesse, voire plus. Un manoir pouvait donc abriter des résidents assez nombreux, ainsi que des visiteurs.

collatéraux; en 1567 Jean Grignart et sa femme habitaient à Champsavoy,11 où la soeur de celle-ci, son mari et leurs enfants vinrent habiter un peu plus d’un an. Somme toute, la cohabitation de deux couples semble avoir été relativement courte, comme le suggère aussi la reconstitution des familles grâce aux registres paroissiaux à partir du XVIIe siècle. En outre, jusqu’au XVIe siècle inclusivement, il était fréquent que le chef de famille ait un ou deux bâtards; chez François Grignart, remarié en 1588, vécut aussi sa fille illégitime née en 1587, jusqu’à son mariage en 1604. Le reste du groupe domestique nous est assez bien connu chez Gouberville. Son homme de confiance, Cantepye, était un gentilhomme pauvre qui avait sa propre résidence mais couchait souvent chez son maître. Le serviteur chargé des achats était en fait le frère utérin du demi-frère bâtard du maître. Il y avait aussi un laquais qui accompagnait Gouberville dans tous ses déplacements, et, en même temps, trois servantes qui restèrent chacune plusieurs années au manoir.12 Il faut retourner chez les Grignart pour rencontrer des enfants; le fils aîné, à l’âge de huit ans, fut placé dans une autre famille en 1559. A l’inverse, un ‘mestre’ d’école vint habiter au manoir en 1563; il tint l’école à la chapelle manoriale et ce furent les enfants de maisons nobles voisines qui vinrent en suivre les leçons. Une fois le couple conjugal rompu par un décès, le manoir pouvait être habité par des individus non mariés: un veuf avec ses fils et filles célibataires, comme les Grignart à la Jéhardière de 1573 à 1578; ou un veuf seul, comme le père Grignart à Champsavoy en 1581, ses enfants habitant ensemble un autre manoir. Tant qu’un partage n’avait pas été conclu, les frères célibataires pouvaient rester avec leur aîné; selon les termes d’un partage13 en 1544, le frère cadet de Gouberville pouvait choisir de rester chez son aîné, lequel dès lors serait ‘tenu luy trouver boire et menger, coucher, lever, comme à luy mesme’, et lui nourrir un laquais. Chaque type de cohabitation marquait différemment la vie de relations. Le type le plus agité était sans doute celle d’un aîné et de son frère cadet; un soir au cours du souper, ‘en la salle’, François Grignart faillit être frappé d’un coup de poignart par son frère cadet.14 Quant à Gouberville,15 ce fut au ‘contre huis’ de sa chambre qu’il fut un jour menacé par son demi-frère bâtard, lequel mit ‘la main à la dague’ [...]. Lorsque les spécificités de la succession faisaient que les héritiers avaient des droits égaux, ils pouvaient partager non seulement les terres mais aussi le corps de logis; un tel partage n’est donc pas nécessairement l’indice de relations d’animosité. Après la mort de Gouberville, son manoir du Mesnil fut partagé entre sa soeur et sa nièce, l’une et l’autre mariées. La première eut pour lot la salle, le cellier et gardes robes, ‘le tout de fond en comble’, ainsi que la vis d’escalier, à charge d’en obturer les ouvertures

LE GROUPE DOMESTIQUE Reconstituer les gestes de la quotidienneté nécessite au préalable de savoir qui était là pour les effectuer. Le mode d’occupation variait d’abord selon que le propriétaire y résidait ou non. Il était fréquent que celui-ci n’y résidât pas. Soit parce qu’il demeurait en ville, mais une résidence urbaine était encore très minoritaire avant le XVIIe siècle. Soit, plus fréquemment, pour une cause démographique. Les héritières, c’est-à-dire les filles sans frères, étaient très fréquentes aux XVe–XVIe siècles, en France comme en Angleterre; lorsque l’héritière d’un manoir épousait un aîné, héritier principal, ils disposaient de deux manoirs, dont l’un d’eux, à la mort des parents, cessait d’être habité. C’est ainsi que Gilles ne résidait pas à Gouberville, héritage paternel, mais au Mesnil-au-Val, dont sa mère avait été héritière. Quand le propriétaire ne résidait pas, le manoir était affermé à un métayer.7 Le propriétaire pouvait le bailler aussi à un bourgeois, comme le fit Jean Grignart du manoir de sa défunte femme, la Motte-Cramou. Le bailleur s’y réservait souvent l’usage d’une chambre, ce qui lui facilitait ses déplacements dans le pays. Ainsi Gilles se rendait parfois à Gouberville et y couchait. Dans sa chambre, il dînait avec des compagnons, et on venait l’y trouver avant même son lever.8 En cas de besoin il y séjournait, comme au printemps 1554. Au coeur de l’hiver 1555,9 il faisait grand froid lorsqu’il arriva à Gouberville, qui semble alors inhabité; dans la salle il fit faire ‘grand feu’, lequel prit si violemment que les charbons montant dans la cheminée et retombant sur le toit faillirent causer un incendie. Quant à François Grignart, en 1576, fâché avec son père, il s’installa à son manoir de la MotteCramou, toujours affermé, où il ne disposa ‘que de la chambre sur la depance’.10 Un gentilhomme résidant à son manoir polarisait une sorte de micro-société. Le groupe domestique comprenait une parentèle plus ou moins élargie dont la composition dépendait du cycle familial. Après le mariage du fils aîné, ce dernier pouvait habiter quelque temps avec ses parents; une cohabitation de deux couples de générations différentes pouvait durer un an, comme ce fut le cas chez les Grignart en 1571, mais sans doute guère plus. Il arrivait aussi que cohabitent deux couple

11

En Evran; Raison du Cleuziou, 49–50. Foisil, 50. 13 Gouberville, vol 4, 199. 14 Raison du Cleuziou, 62. 15 15/8/1559.

7

12

Comme la Bonnaye en 1588 [Lemasson]. 8 Gouberville, 4/6/1549; 10/9/1549; 17/4/1550; 29/7/1554. 9 15/2/1554 (vieux style). 10 La Motte-Cramou se trouvait en Pleudihen. Raison du Cleuziou, 56.

162

Michel Nassiet: La Vie au Manoir dans l’Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles donnant sur l’autre lot.16 De même, pas moins de six enfants de Julien Robert et Artuze Dubouays ayant l’âge adulte, et l’aîné, procureur du roi à Hédé, héritant du manoir paternel à titre de préciput, en 1566 la maison de la Chaigne en Gévézé, héritage maternel, fut partagée17 entre les cinq cadets. Cette ‘grande maison’, couverte de pierres noires, longue de soixante-deux pieds, comprenait une ‘salle metuel’ que jouxtait une chambre à chaque bout; cette salle basse semble avoir été sous la charpente, car l’acte de partage cite une seule chambre haute, la pièce à l’autre extrémité étant nommée ‘les faiterie’. Le cadet qui était prêtre eut le privilège d’avoir la chambre basse septentrionale, la chambre haute et le grenier sur celle-ci. Un autre cadet hérita de la chambre basse au bout méridionnal; mais, veuf ou déjà remarié, il habitait à la petite ville de Hédé. La soeur célibataire dut se contenter des ‘faiterie’ au bout méridionnal, certainement à l’étage. Enfin la salle elle-même fut partagée en deux moitiés pour un frère et une soeur, ayant chacun un conjoint. Ce partage de la salle devait poser des problèmes d’accès à la cheminée, même si celle-ci était contre un mur gouttereau. La cour fut partagée en cinq et seul le puits resta commun. Il faudrait savoir lesquels de ces personnages et de ces couples y résidèrent effectivement. Un tel partage pourrait donc expliquer que des logis, quoique pas très grands et disposant d’escaliers intérieurs, aient été pourvus d’escaliers droits extérieurs destinés à assurer un accès indépendant à l’étage, comme la Grande Touche18 en Pacé, et Batine en Campbon. En outre, ces partages montrent aussi que les relations à l’intérieur du manoir ne doivent pas être conçues seulement sur le mode de la cohabitation, mais parfois aussi sur celui du voisinage. Finalement, le groupe domestique breton noble semble s’être conformé, dans l’ensemble, au modèle nucléaire.

meubles, en valeur, étaient investis sous forme de bestiaux et de matériel. Dans les manoirs de la petite noblesse, l’entourage mobilier de la vie quotidienne était d’autant plus modeste qu’il ne constituait donc que 37% à 50% de biens meubles ne s’élevant en tout qu’à 100 ou 250 livres (cf annexe n° 2). Chez les nobles qui ne faisaient pas valoir leurs terres eux-mêmes, la valeur des objets de consommation s’élevait à 70% du total des biens meubles. Un petit noble pouvait exercer l’activité de tavernier ou d’hôtelier; sans être très fréquente, celle-ci n’était pas rare dans la petite noblesse bretonne. Guillaume de La Motte, dont nous avons l’inventaire après son décès en 1517, avait été agriculteur, fermier de dîmes et tavernier, activité pour laquelle il tenait une comptabilité sur des cahiers.20 Cette activité n’était pas si incongrue chez un petit noble: elle s’apparentait au souci d’hospitalité et de convivialité qui était la norme. En outre elle nécessitait quelques moyens matériels: un local assez vaste (ce pouvait être l’une des pièces du rez-de-chaussée), de la vaisselle d’étain, des nappes, un peu d’argent et une charrette pour acheter une barrique de vin. Cette petite aisance, aux XVe–XVIe siècles, une minorité seulement des ruraux en disposaient, et tenir taverne pouvait être relativement rémunérateur. Au manoir, la laine était cardée,21 ou le chanvre ou le lin broyés et filés,22 en Bretagne et en BasseNormandie; Gouberville employait parfois, au broyage du lin ou au filage, une ouvrière étrangère au manoir,23 sous la direction de sa sœur bâtarde. Enfin, une activité nécessitant un capital considérable était celle d’engraisseur; certains nobles en effet achetaient des bovins et les revendaient après les avoir engraissés.24 L’élevage des bovins se faisait notamment sous forme de pacage dans la forêt. C’était ce que devait pratiquer écuyer Gilles Croxelay qui disposait d’une métairie à la lisière de la forêt du Gâvre. Ses biens meubles valaient 1426 livres tournois en 1516, dont 36% en créance ‘pour la vente des beuffs de gresse’ à deux marchands pour une valeur de 524 livres, soit environ quatre-vingt boeufs. Sa résidence était l’une des deux autres maisons25 qu’il avait dans la paroisse de Blain, et c’est elle qui semble avoir été le centre de son activité d’élevage, avec, alentour, la grange, des barges de foin et des charretées de paille.

LES ACTIVITÉS AU MANOIR Le paysage et la circulation alentour portaient la marque des activités dont le manoir était le lieu ou le centre. La plus fréquente était sans doute l’exploitation agricole; sur nos huit inventaires bretons de la période 1516–88, quatre suggèrent que le gentilhomme lui-même était ou avait été exploitant. Dans cette source, l’indice n’en est pas les bestiaux, parmi lesquels des bovins souvent nombreux, lesquels pouvaient être élevés par un métayer, mais le matériel agricole, comprenant toujours une charrue complète et divers types de charrettes. Le paysage était anobli par une ‘rabine’, une allée bordée d’arbres, mais la cour19 était décorée de pailles pourries et de fumier. Pour ces petits nobles agriculteurs, de 36% à 51% de leurs biens

20

‘Ungn cayer de papier ou il y a quatre feillez escriptz de marches de tavernes [...]» (Nassiet, ‘Les activités d’un petit noble [...]’, 176). 21 Nassiet 1993, ‘Les activités . . .’, 171. 22 Nassiet 1987, 329; Nassiet, 1994, 193 et no 31, 37, 121–22. 23 Gouberville, 1/8/1549, 20/4/1550. 24 Exemple dans Nassiet, Noblesse et pauvreté, 434. De même en Angoumois en 1534, Vaissiére, 52–3. 25 La ‘maison de la Viollaye’, et une maison au bourg [lettre de rémission donnée au fils, Jehan Croxelay, en 1522, Arch dép Loire-Atlantique B 27]. Cette maison au bourg semble être la résidence où est prisé le mobilier au début de l’inventaire de 1516 [Arch dép Loire-Atlantique 2E 720; je remercie Alain Gallicé qui m’a généreusement communiqué ce document].

16

Partage en 1579, Gouberville, vol 4, 268–269 (on ne dispose pas de l’acte décrivant l’autre lot). 17 Arch dép Ille-et-Vilaine 2Eb 29. Le préambule de cet acte a été publié par Sevegrand, 1992, annexe no 6, avec un tableau généalogique du lignage Robert. 18 Le manoir en Bretagne, 113 et 105. A Batine, l’escalier droit extérieur, perpendiculaire à l’axe du manoir, est évidemment une addition postérieure à la construction. 19 Sevegrand, 1995, 81; Nassiet, ‘Les activités d’un petit noble [...]’, 175.

163

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

LES GESTES ET LEUR LOCALISATION

dressoir ni buffet, alors qu’en 1584 sur la côte nord de la Bretagne, il y avait un buffet chez un laboureur-armateur.30 Quels étaient au juste les usages qui nécessitaient un certain apparat dans la salle basse? Ce n’était pas l’exercice de la justice, dont le lieu devait être public et non privé, et qui était rendue au bourg, souvent en plein air, sous quelque vieil arbre. La salle étant la pièce des réceptions collectives. Certaines réceptions étaient occasionnées par le cycle calendaire et le cycle familial. Un soir d’été, la salle du sire de Gouberville abrita jusqu’à minuit les danses de la vingtaine d’hommes et femmes employés à la moisson.31 A Noël, c’était dans la cheminée de la salle que le sieur de la Gorière avait le droit de faire porter une grande buche par ses tenanciers, en criant trois fois: ‘Nouel!’, à la seule condition qu’elle pût passer par la porte!32 Certaines réceptions revêtaient nécessairement une certaine solennité. L’hommage dû par le vassal au seigneur, au principal manoir de celui-ci, était-il encore rendu en personne aux XVe–XVIe siècles? Le fait de tenir taverne n’empêchait pas Guillaume de La Motte d’avoir deux dais, dont un associé à une chaire, c’est-à-dire un fauteuil à haut dossier, à côté desquels se voyaient ses armes d’archer.33 Une demande en mariage exigeait la présence de quelques assistants, susceptibles d’en rendre témoignage; ce fut dans la ‘grant salle’ de Thouars qu’en 1424 un prétendant et ses nombreux compagnons demandèrent en mariage la fille de la maison, et qu’on fit entrer la belle pour qu’elle dît si elle y consentait.34 La salle servait sans doute lors des noces, dont les festivités avaient lieu souvent chez les parents de la fille.35 En revanche, des discours exigeant la présence de témoins, mais dont le caractère désagréable excluait tout apparat, étaient proférés dans la cuisine, comme les deux sommations de Gouberville36 à sa sœur pour qu’elle mît fin à sa vie de concubinage. Les usages solennels de la salle paraissent, finalement, épisodiques; aussi pouvait-elle être le cadre de gestes très prosaïques, comme divers travaux des serviteurs. Gouberville y passe un moment avec l’un d’eux ‘qui cousait’; d’autres fois, un serviteur y extrayait du miel, un autre y ‘fit de la latte’.37 Au XVIe siècle la cuisine n’était donc pas un espace propre aux domestiques. C’était dans la cuisine que le feu était conservé et où, l’hiver, on venait chercher refuge contre le froid. Gouberville, un matin de février s’y habille ‘devant le feu’, près duquel il dort, ‘sur une chaise’,

En Bretagne c’est dans la salle basse que de la cour on entre directement dans le manoir. En entrant, un paysan pouvait être impressionné d’abord par l’ampleur de la salle. Dans la maison-longue qu’une famille paysanne partageait avec ses bestiaux, la surface disponible pour les humains était de l’ordre de 35m2; en comparaison, une salle manoriale paraissait donc vaste, de l’ordre de 70m2, et haute, surtout s’il s’agissait d’une salle sous charpente. Cette ampleur était soulignée par la cheminée, toujours plus ou moins monumentale et souvent armoriée. La salle était animée notamment par les chiens, pour qui de la paille était épandue sur le sol, dans le but, précise Noël Du Fail, que la compagnie de leur maître les rende meilleurs et vigoureux. Sur une perche de bois, un oiseau,26 servant à la chasse au vol, manifestait la spécificité du mode de vie du seigneur de la maison. La noblesse du maître était exprimée aussi par les arcs que Noël Du Fail nous montre attachés au mur au bas bout de la salle; un seul inventaire breton, celui du Moncel en 1571, place dans la salle l’armement du feudataire, en l’occurrence près de la cheminée. Seule la noblesse riche possédait des tapisseries,27 du moins n’y en a-t-il aucune dans les inventaires bretons actuellement disponibles sur des familles de petite et même de moyenne noblesse. Le mobilier comprenait des coffres, dont l’un parfois ‘taillé’, c’est-à-dire sculpté, une table et des bancs. C’était dans la salle en effet que se tenaient les festins collectifs où l’on faisait ‘bonne chère’, comme en témoignent les passeplats. On apercevait enfin un ‘dressoir’ (cité par nos inventaires à partir de 1537–41) ou ‘buffet’ (1560–71). Au XVIe siècle les deux mots étaient synonymes: tant les dressoirs que les buffets avaient deux ‘armoires’, c’est-àdire deux compartiments, et certains au moins fermaient à deux battants. En 1560 et 1588 certains buffets avaient en outre deux tiroirs.28 Sur le plateau de ce meuble on ‘dressait’ la vaisselle, notamment pour le service de la table. Le buffet pouvait être armorié29 et contribuait donc à l’apparat de la salle. Il était regardé avec convoitise par les laboureurs aisés. En effet dès le début du XVIe siècle existait une strate sans doute restreinte de laboureurs ayant une fortune mobilière égale à celle des petits nobles, et habitant une maison pourvue d’un étage avec une chambre; en 1550 un tel laboureur du pays de Bécherel n’avait ni

30

La valeur des biens meubles de ce premier laboureur en 1550 était de 163 livres; le second, en Plévenon, était co-propriétaire d’une barque [Arch dép Ille-et-Vilaine, 4B 3076; Arch dép Côtes-d’Armor B 739]. 31 22/8/1555. 32 Arch dép Ille-et-Vilaine, B 1540/6; Nassiet, Noblesse et pauvreté, 55, note 50. 33 Nassiet, ‘Les activités d’un petit noble [...]’, 174 34 La Tremoille, Chartrier de Thouars, 28. 35 Lorsqu’en 1588 François Grignart épousa la fille du sieur de la Fosseaux-Loups, les nouveaux époux dînèrent, soupèrent et couchèrent à la Fosse-aux-Loups, ‘puis le lendemain’ la mariée ‘fut menée à son menaige’ au manoir de son mari. 36 Gouberville, 23/2/1560; 30/4/1562. 37 Gouberville, 28/3/1553; 28/6/1549.

26

La Tremoille, Chartrier de Thouars, 208. En 1542 à Thouars la perche de bois est au milieu de la salle [La Tremoille, Inventaire [...], 15]. 27 cf l’inventaire des tapisseries restées au château de Rostrenen en 1531, Arch dép Côtes-d’Armor, E 2723. 28 Nassiet 1994, no 9 et 39 (deux battants) et no 8 et 87. Nassiet 1987, 328–9. Sevegrand 1995, 74. Reynies, 1, 538 et 582, et la miniature, 539. 29 ‘Avons vu en la salle basse de la dicte maison de la Bonne Danrée ung escusson estant à ung buffect . . .’. Ce buffet était antérieur à 1573, date du décès de Jehan Guezille sieur de la Bonne-Denrée en la ChapelleChaussée [Procès-verbal des armoiries Guezille en 1606, Arch dép Illeet-Vilaine, 2Eb 29; Nassiet, Noblesse et pauvreté, tableau généalogique, 68].

164

Michel Nassiet: La Vie au Manoir dans l’Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles un après-midi de janvier.38 Ce fut sans doute dans la cuisine que Gouberville39 et tous ses ‘gens’ passèrent ce pluvieux après-midi de février à lire un roman de chevalerie; scène célèbre mais unique. C’était dans la cuisine que l’on dînait lorsque l’on n’était que deux ou trois; lors d’une visite chez sa nièce ‘fort malade’, Gouberville40 dîna avec deux parents ‘à la sale’, détail assez exceptionnel pour qu’il l’ait noté. Dans un manoir n’ayant au rez-de-chaussée que deux pièces habitables, les fonctions de celles-ci étaient nécessairement moins différenciées et les gestes notés cidessus se répartissaient dans la salle et la seconde pièce. Parmi les inventaires bretons du XVIe siècle, c’était dans deux manoirs de ce type qu’il y avait un lit dans la salle.41 Dans l’un d’eux, le Moncel en 1571, ‘la chambre basse’ servait à la fois de cuisine et de dépense. Le maître du logis avait sa chambre à l’étage. L’aménagement en était plus soigné, avec une belle cheminée et, souvent, des coussièges. La fenêtre, pourvue d’une décoration particulière, était identifiable de l’extérieur; chez Gouberville elle était vitrée. Dans les inventaires après décès, il est tentant de voir la chambre du maître dans celle qui était pourvue de la meilleure couette de plumes. Les lits étaient le plus souvent à quenouille, avec un ciel de toile ou de serge, une lourde couette, un drap et une couverture. La couette de plumes était l’élément du lit ayant la plus grande valeur; destinée à procurer chaleur et confort, elle était prisée selon son poids; au cours de l’inflation du XVIe siècle, le prix de la livre de couette a augmenté beaucoup plus que l’étain, plus, même, que le froment (cf annexe n° 6). La chambre munie de la meilleure couette était, à la Chesnaye en 1541, l’unique chambre haute. Elle était appelée ‘chambre de parade’ dans l’inventaire de 1516, et ‘la chambre blanche’ dans celui de 1588. A la Chesnaye en 1541, comme à Kerennes en 1517, c’était dans cette pièce que se trouvait l’armement pour un ou deux combattants: à la Chesnaye, une arbalète, rangée, semble-t-il, d’un côté de la cheminée, une hallebarde, une vieille épée et un poignart de l’autre.42 Dans cette même chambre, la présence d’un petit coffre en forme de pupitre (peut-être posé sur un dressoir) suggère, là, la pratique de la lecture et de l’écriture. Chez une famille de moyenne noblesse43 en 1588 se distingue, outre un buffet et quatre coffres où étaient rangés les atours de la dame, une table de jeu ‘à figures’. En hiver Gouberville44 pouvait passer plusieurs après-midi à jouer aux cartes ou au tric-trac. Le célibataire qu’était ce dernier couchait ordinairement, semble-t-il, sans la présence d’un serviteur; il fallut qu’il fût ‘fort malade’ pour qu’un fidèle compagnon, d’ailleurs paysan, couchât dans sa chambre.45 La situation de la chambre du maître à l’étage, tout en la

mettant à quelque distance des visiteurs entrés dans la salle, n’empêchait pas Gouberville d’en recevoir dans sa chambre, même le matin, ‘estant encore au lict’, ou d’y payer les gages d’un domestique.46 Même une femme mariée pouvait recevoir des visites au lit dans la chambre conjugale.47 La chambre haute n’était pas un espace réservé. On se trompe en imaginant que les visiteurs ne gravissaient pas l’escalier, et que la beauté des vis en granite leur restait cachée. Communiquant sans doute avec la chambre du maître, il semble bien y avoir eu, dans certains manoirs à salle basse sous charpente, à l’étage et à l’intérieur, une gallerie en bois en encorbellement, laquelle pouvait avoir divers usages. A la Chesnaye en 1541 elle était assez grande pour qu’on y mît une table et une couchette,48 celleci destinée sans doute à un serviteur. Grâce à sa situation en surplomb, elle permettait aussi au maître de surveiller la salle. Dans les manoirs comportant une ou deux autres chambres à l’étage, le caractère sommaire du mobilier inventorié, un lit sans literie et un certain bric-à-brac nous montrent parfois une chambre momentanément désaffectée, ne servant de chambre à coucher qu’à l’occasion d’une visite.

38

46

39

47

UN PÔLE DE LA SOCIABILITÉ RURALE Le trait du mode de vie que suggère le mobilier n’est pas un souci d’intimité mais la pratique de l’hospitalité (les lits nombreux) et de la convivialité, dont les ‘commodités’ étaient, outre les indispensables barriques dans le cellier, des tables et des sièges. Tous les inventaires citent des tables: dans la salle, dans la cuisine, parfois dans la chambre basse (1541, 1588) ou dans une chambre haute (1517). Parfois il y avait aussi des ‘chaires’ ou chaises (1517, 1588). La présence de tables était une autre différence importante du manoir avec la maison paysanne. Au visiteur il est normal d’offrir à boire. Ce geste était une norme si forte que Robinet Le Roux ne pouvait s’en dispenser, bien que ç’aurait été son intérêt. Ce personnage était, vers 1510, un fourbisseur, ‘maître en l’art de faire des épées, dagues, couteaux, hallebardes, voulges, arbalettes’; demeurant à Saint-Brieuc, il visitait les nobles pour leur proposer les armes de sa fabrication, et ses hôtes le faisaient ‘boire pour avoir le meilleur marché’.49 L’occasion par excellence de la convivialité à table était le dîner. Au cours du printemps et de l’été 1553, Gouberville dîna chez lui quatre jours sur cinq, et pour la moitié de ces dîners au manoir il y avait un visiteur, soit que celui-ci aît été ‘invité’, soit qu’il fût ‘survenu’ à l’improviste et qu’on l’ait hébergé.50 A qui exactement étaient destinées, vers

6/2/1551; 10/1/1553. 6/2/1554. 40 24/7/1560. 41 Nassiet 1994, no 42; Sevegrand, 72. 42 Nassiet 1994, no 96–7, 105 à 107, et note 36. 43 Lemasson, 174–5. 44 28 et 30/12, 1/1/1550 ancien style. 45 Gouberville, 11/7/1557.

Gouberville, 2/6 et 25/11/1549, 2/3/1549 ancien style, 13/10/1550. Dans la décennie 1430, le seigneur de Giac ‘fist ouvrir l’uys de sa chambre, cuidant que ledit de La Tremoille venist veoir sa femme au lit ainsi que attrefoiz avoit fait’ [La Tremoille, Les La Tremoille..., 216]. 48 Nassiet 1994, 194 et no 115 à 122. Jones, Meirion-Jones, ‘Seigneurie et résidence [...]’, 453. 49 Arch dép Loire-Atlantique B 19 f 105, cité par Le Frapper, 97. 50 Hyman.

165

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 puis à la campagne au XVIIIe.57 Néanmoins déjà un meuble comme le buffet a pu être l’objet d’un phénomène de mode auprès de la strate de la paysannerie la plus aisée; les inventaires après décès conservés pour la HauteBretagne à partir du troisième tiers du XVIe siècle, quoique dispersés, devront être l’objet d’une étude globale. Le Journal de Gouberville montre que les manoirs constituaient, dans l’espace rural, des pôles d’activités et de rencontres dont l’importance dépassait de loin la seule noblesse. Des sources existent, de diverses sortes, encore que très dispersées, dans les chartriers familiaux, privés et publics. Elles donneront de plus vives lumières, selon nous, si l’historien les croise, et les place dans une problématique combinant l’histoire familiale, celle de l’économie rurale et celle de la culture matérielle.

1468, les quatre tables toujours dressées pour ‘digner’ et ‘souper’ dans la salle du riche manoir de L’Hermitage?51 De nombreux visiteurs restaient souper et coucher (vingt-neuf chez Gouberville en l’année 1559). C’étaient les proches parents, mais pour une part minoritaire; des membres du clergé, et surtout des artisans et des paysans.52 Le manoir était donc un centre de la sociabilité rurale. Nous savons que certains hôtes couchèrent dans une chambre haute. Lors d’une soirée à Langongar, selon une lettre de rémission,53 après souper le visiteur fut conduit à une chambre haute pour coucher, mais les hommes échangèrent encore des propos sur les armes à feu; le maître de maison prit dans un coffre son pistolet du dernier modèle et on s’assit à une table pour l’examiner (un coup partit accidentèlement qui tua la belle-soeur venue apporter une ‘collation’). Chez Gouberville, un prêtre mourut dans ‘la chambre de dessus la salle’54 (ce qui montre que cette dernière, au manoir du Mesnil, était plafonnée). Parfois Gouberville invitait plusieurs personnages pour un petit festin, dont les préparatifs commençaient souvent la veille et pour lequel il faisait acheter des épices. Lors d’un déjeuner il y eut huit convives à une table et ‘tous les serviteurs’ à une autre, dans la même pièce;55 le repas était l’occasion par excellence de conjoindre la convivialité et l’expression de la hiérarchie, mais non sans, encore, une assez grande familiarité. Il n’est signalé de plats à laver les mains, en étain, qu’en 1588 chez un gentilhomme de moyenne noblesse, mais un lave-mains était parois enchassé dans un mur de la salle. Le pain était fait au manoir, où se trouvait souvent une ‘mé a paistrir’, un pétrin, normalement dans la cuisine (1588), ou, en l’absence de celle-ci, dans la salle (1541, no 36) ou dans ‘la chambre basse’ (1571); il y avait généralement un four à proximité du logis. C’est en 1588 que pour la première fois un inventaire mentionne ‘ung galtouer’ avec ‘ung trepyet’ (dans la cheminée de la chambre basse), c’est-à-dire sans doute de quoi cuire des galettes de blé noir. Tous les inventaires citent des landiers, parfois avec une broche, pour faire griller de la viande. Seul celui de 1571 décrit le contenu du charnier, d’ailleurs fort grand: quatre côtés de lard et quatre andouilles, le tout prisé huit livres,56 soit le prix d’une vache. On avait du poisson frais si le domaine était pourvu d’un vivier, et le manoir produisait aussi du miel. Finalement, nous n’avons ici que quelques lueurs vacillantes, comme devaient en donner les deux ou trois chandeliers que citent nos inventaires. Le cadre matériel de la vie quotidienne était encore bien fruste dans les manoirs du XVIe siècle, par rapport aux raffinements qui allaient se diffuser dans les demeures des nobles, en ville d’abord,

51

Arch dép Ille-et-Vilaine 1F 1225, cité par Meirion-Jones, Jones et Pilcher, Manorial Domestic Buildings [...], 177. 52 Foisil, 182–9. 53 Langongar, alors en Plouzané, aujourd’hui en Saint-Renan. Lettre de 1561, Lulzac, 86. 54 8/2/1550. 55 15/3/1557. 56 Sevegrand 1995, 76.

57

166

Pour cette comparaison, cf deux mémoires de maîtrise que j’ai dirigés à l’Université de Rennes-2: Le Luhern, Pierrick, Le cadre de vie noble au XVIIIe siècle. Etude des inventaires après décès du ressort du présidial de Rennes, 1715-1790, 1995 (noblesse parlementaire exclue); Delauney, Patricia, Le cadre de vie de la noblesse parlementaire dans le ressort du présidial de Rennes (1720-1789), 1996.

Michel Nassiet: La Vie au Manoir dans l’Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles

ANNEXES: ANALYSE D’INVENTAIRES APRÈS DÉCÈS BRETONS 1. VALEUR DES BIENS MEUBLES (EN LIVRES MONNAIE) Date

Défunt

Paroisse

Objets de consommation

1516 1517 1517 1537 1541 1560 1571 1588

Croxelay Le Croazer La Motte Barbier Gibon Le Bel Du Plessis Ladvocat

Blain Ploumagoar1 Saint-Maudez2 Saint-Vougay3 Aradon4 Gaël5 Saint-Gilles6 Pleurtuit7

Capital

Produits d’exploitation

41,1 31,4

56,4 29,7

12,0 10,6

69,6 172,3 131,3 288,3

61,9 64,7 93,1 54,4

39,6 9,0 32,1 61,2

Total 1188.00 109.50 71.70 996.00 171.10 246.05 256.47 404.00

Engraisseur Exploitant & notaire Exploitant & tavernier Officier Exploitant agricole Exploitant agricole Exploitant agricole

-----------------------------------------------------------------------1 Ropartz. 2 Nassiet, ‘Les activités [...]’. 3 Douard, C, ‘L’ancien manoir de Kerjean d’après un document de 1537’, Le manoir en Bretagne [...], 296–303. 4 Nassiet 1994. 5 Nassiet 1987. 6 Sevegrand 1995. 7 Lemasson 169–76.

2. RÉPARTITIONS PAR POSTES (%)

3. SITUATION DANS LA NOBLESSE

(REVENU DES BIENS NOBLES) 1517 1517 1541 1560 1571 1588

Le Croazer La Motte Gibon Le Bel Du Plessis Ladvocat

37,5 43,8 40,5 70,0 51,2 71,4

51,5 41,4 36,3 26,3 36,3 13,5

11,0 14,8 23,2 3,7 12,5 15,1

Son père en 1481: 10 l. Son père en 1480: 60 l . Son prédécesseur en 1464: 60 l. Son prédécesseur en 1480: 40 l. Son père en 1541: 60 l. Son prédécesseur en 1480: 240 l.

4. VALEUR DES OBJETS DE CONSOMMATION (POSTE 1, SUPRA TABLE 1) cuisine meubles vêtements h 1516 1517 1517 1537 1541 1560 1571 1588

Croxelay Le Croazer La Motte Barbier Gibon Le Bel Du Plessis Ladvocat

5. LITS

1517 1517 1537 1541 1560 1571 1588

2,5 7,9

22,6 13,1

7,25 16,5 17,8 14,4

26,6 70,5 55,3 182,8

9,1 18,2

linge f 6,6 6,1

3,3 3,8

3,5 46,0 12,0 n.p.

11,3 14,8 14,7 61,0

VALEUR LITS/ OBJETS DE CONSOMMATION % Le Croazer La Motte Barbier Gibon Le Bel Du Plessis Ladvocat

étain

argent 15,4 0,0 0,0 496,5 5,2 8,5 4,6 24,7

VALEUR MOYENNE (LIVRES)

38,0 19,1

3,9 2,0

20,0 24,7 25,7 43,0

3,5 6,1 11,2 15,5

167

armes 242,0 5,0 0,5 0,1 6,0 0,0 n.p.

non prisées

5,0 10,0 8,0 0,0

NOMBRE

4 3 15 4 7 3 8

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

6. PRIX (SOLS ET DENIERS TOURNOIS)

1510 1517 1550 1584 1588

Froment (à Châteauneuf) (la livre)

Etain (la livre)

Couettes de plumes (la livre)

7 à 8 sols 11 30 36

3 sols 3,3 5 4,2

7,2 à 12 deniers 1,4 à 1,8 sols 4à5 4 à 6 sols

Laine (la livre) 2,8 sols

La vie au manoir dépendait aussi de l’activité du chef de famille; beaucoup de petits nobles étaient exploitants agricoles, quelques-uns étaient taverniers. La vie quotidienne était animée par de fréquentes visites. Dans la salle basse avaient lieu les actes solennels et festifs, et les repas rassemblant des convives assez nombreux. Dans la cuisine avaient lieu des gestes plus simples, voire plus intimes; des convives peu nombreux y dînaient. La situation de la chambre seigneuriale, à l’étage, n’en faisait pas un lieu réservé ni à l’écart: le maître du logis y recevait des visites, dès le matin; les inventaires après décès y montrent la literie la plus confortable et quelques éléments de mobilier plus spécialisés.

ABSTRACT This paper presents elementary observations to reconstitute the way of life in the manorial domestic buildings of the minor nobility in north-west France during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, based on written sources: probate inventories, memoirs, and Gouberville’s Journal. We need, first of all, to indentify those people who lived in a manor, in other words, the composition of the household. There was no lengthy cohabitation of two married couples, although sometime a couple of relatives might live for a few months or up to a year. Only single or widowed persons lived for a long time with a married couple. Nevertheless, at times of succession, coheirs might share a manorial building in apartments, thus becoming neighbours. Whilst many minor lords would cultivate their own estate, some would rear cattle and yet others were tavern-keepers. Many people visited the sire de Gouberville. In the ground-floor hall the lord would entertain numerous guests to dinner; feasts and solemn actions would take place there. Simpler hospitality, with more intimate acquaintances, might take place in the kitchen; few guests would dine there. The seigneurial chamber, upstairs, was not a particularly private room: The sire de Gouberville would receive people in his chamber first thing in the morning. Probate inventories reveal that the most comfortable bedding and more specialized pieces of furniture, in addition to a little writing-desk or a gamingtable, were to be found in this chamber.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Dieser Artikel stellt elementare Beobachtungen vor, um die Lebensweise in gutshofartigen Wohnbauten, der weniger bedeutenderen Adelsschicht im Nordwesten von Frankreich im 15. und 16. Jh., zu rekonstruieren. Diese basieren auf schriftlichen Quellen: Testamente, Memoirs und dem Journal von Gouberville. Als erster Schritt mussen wir herausfinden, welche Personen in einem Gutshof gewohnt haben, also der Haushalt. Zwei verheiratete Paare wohnten nie lange zusammen, allerdings wohnten manchmal Verwandte für ein paar Monate oder bis zu einem Jahr lang zusammen. Nur unverheiratete oder verwitwete Personen wohnten für längere Zeit mit einem verheirateten Paar. Trotzdem bei einer Nachfolge kam es manchmal vor, dass Miterben einen gutshofartigen Bau in der Form von Wohnungen teilten, so dass sie dann Nachbaren wurden. Während viele, weniger bedeutendere Lords ihren eigenen Besitz pflegten, züchteten andere Vieh und nochmals andere waren Tavernen Besitzer. Viele Leute besuchten den sire de Gouberville. Der Lord lud im Erdgeschoss-Saal unzählige Gäste zum Essen ein; Festmahle und ernste Angelegenheiten würden dort stattfinden. Einfachere Gastfreundschaften, mit engeren Bekanntschaften würden in der Kuche stattfinden, sehr wenige Gäste hätten dort allerdings gespiesen. Die Adelskammer die sich im ersten Stock befand, war nicht ein sehr privates Zimmer: der sire de Gouberville empfing morgens Leute in seinem Zimmer. Testamente bringen zum Vorschein, dass das bequeme Bettzeug und die spezielleren Möbelstücke zusammen mit einem kleinen Schreibtisch oder Kartenspieltisch diese Kammer schmückten.

RÉSUMÉ Cet article tente de contribuer à une reconstitution du mode de vie dans les manoirs de la petite et moyenne noblesse dans le Nord-Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles, en se fondant sur des sources écrites: inventaires après décès, actes de partage, mémoires, et le Journal de Gouberville. Il faut d’abord préciser qui résidait au manoir et notamment comment était composé le groupe domestique. Il n’y avait pas cohabitation durable de deux couples mariés dans un manoir à titre de résidence principale; un couple apparenté pouvait seulement venir quelque temps en tant que visiteurs. Avec un couple marié ne pouvaient résider que des individus veufs ou célibataires. En revanche, lors de certaines successions, les co-héritiers partageaient le manoir en appartements et devenaient des voisins. 168

Michel Nassiet: La Vie au Manoir dans l’Ouest de la France aux XVe et XVIe siècles

Bibliographie

SOURCES

TRAVAUX

Du Fail, N 1894. Les contes et discours d’Eutrapel par le feu seigneur de la Herissaye, gentilhomme breton, Paris: Éditions Courbet Gouberville, G de 1993. Le Journal du sire de Gouberville, 4 vols, Bricqueboscq: Les Editions des Champs Joüon des Longrais, J 1912. ‘Information du sénéchal de Rennes contre les Ligueurs, 1589’, Bull et Mém de la Soc archéol d’Ille-et-Vilaine, 41, 191–347 La Tremoille, duc de 1877a. Chartrier de Thouars. Documents historiques et généalogiques, Paris La Tremoille, duc de 1877b. Inventaire de François de La Trémoille, 1542, et comptes d’Anne de Laval, Nantes La Tremoille, duc de 1890. Les La Tremoille pendant cinq siècles. I. Guy VI et Georges, Nantes Lemasson, A 1913. Un coin du Poudouvre: la châtellenie du Plessis-Balisson, Saint-Servan Nassiet, M 1987. ‘Un inventaire après décès dans une famille de petite noblesse en 1560’, Annales de la Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Saint-Malo, 325–32 Nassiet, M 1993. ‘Les activités d’un petit noble au début du XVIe siècle d’après son inventaire après décès’, Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest, 165–78 Nassiet, M 1994. ‘Inventaire du manoir breton de la Chesnaye (1541)’, Histoire & Sociétés rurales, 2, 191–204 Raison du Cleuziou, A 1899. ‘Journal de François Grignart, escuier, sieur de Champsavoy (1551– 1607)’, Soc d’Émul des Côtes-du-Nord, 37, 31– 110 Ropartz, S 1862. ‘Mobilier d’un gentilhomme et d’un journalier bretons au XVIe siècle’, Rev de Bretagne et de Vendée, tome 1, 37–55 Sevegrand, G 1995. ‘L’inventaire après décès d’un gentilhomme campagnard au XVIe siècle: Olivier du Plessix’, Bull et Mém de la Soc archéol d’Illeet-Vilaine, 97, 71–88

Foisil, M 1986. Le sire de Gouberville, Paris Hyman, P et M 1984. ‘Table et sociabilité au XVIe siècle. L’exemple du sire de Gouberville’, Rev d’Hist moderne et contemporaine, 31, 465–71 Le Frapper, R 1992. Criminalité et délinquance en Bretagne au Moyen Age, 1365–1516, d’après les lettres de rémission, Maîtrise, Université de Nantes Lulzac, Y 1994. Chroniques oubliées des manoirs bretons, Nantes Inventaire général 1993. Cahiers de l’Inventaire, no. 28, Le Manoir en Bretagne, 1380–1600, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale Meirion-Jones G et Jones, M 1992. ‘Seigneurie et résidence dans la Bretagne médiévale: un bilan des recherches récentes’, 117e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Clermont-Ferrand, 1992, Histoire médiévale, 437–60 Meirion-Jones G et Jones M (eds) 1993. Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France, London: Society of Antiquaries of London Nassiet, M 1990–92. ‘Dictionnaire des feudataires des évêchés de Dol et Saint-Malo en 1480’, Bulletin de l’Association bretonne, 1990, 183–203; 1991, 265–96; 1992, 221–51. Nassiet, M 1993. Noblesse et pauvreté. La petite noblesse en Bretagne, XVe –XVIIIe siècles, Rennes: Soc d’Hist et d’Archéol de Bretagne Sevegrand, G 1992. ‘La seigneurie de Saint-Gondran’, Bull et Mém de la Soc archéol d’Ille-et-Vilaine, 94, 29-106 Reynies, N de 1987. Principes d’analyse scientifique. Le mobilier domestique, vocabulaire typologique, 2 vol, Paris Vaissiere P de 1904. Gentilshommes campagnards de l’ancienne France, Paris

169

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

170

The Imperial Hall at Frankfurt am Main: a Re-Interpretation by

Cord Meckseper

Today, Frankfurt is known outside Germany mainly as the seat of the German Bundesbank. Its headquarters are situated in a skyscaper and the buildings of numerous other banks in Frankfurt are also trying to reach the sky: height as a symbol of power! However, I am not quite sure if the bankers are aware that it was Frankfurt in particular where in the early Middle Ages architecture already monumentalized height as a symbol of power. This proved to be very influential for the future as even in those days the leading figures of the Middle Ages looked to Frankfurt as an example. I shall establish and substantiate this argument by reference to the late Carolingian period when an Imperial Palace existed in Frankfurt. In order to find it, let us go into the heart of the modern city. The centre of Frankfurt lies on gently raised ground on the northern bank of the River Main. It is dominated in the east by the substantial gothic Dom, which was never a cathedral, but rather a collegiate church. From 1356 the Dom served as the place for the election – and since 1562 also for the coronation – of successive German kings. The medieval market place at the Römerberg is situated west of the Dom. The destruction of the area between the market place and the Dom in World War II led to large scale archaeological excavations after the War1 and, subsequently, to excavations inside the Dom, 1991–3.2 What were the results of these investigations? It is suggested that a Roman military camp was established at the site under Emperor Augustus. A small castellum was erected under Vespasian; however, it is only the baths of the castellum complex that survive with any certainty. In the second century AD the castellum was replaced by a large Roman villa (villa rustica). When the Franks took over the territory, c AD 500, the villa developed into a Merovingian royal court – giving the site the name Frankfurt, ie, ford of the Franks – which continued to use the main buildings of the Roman villa complex. Further evidence of the existence of a royal court at this site is provided by the remains of a small single-celled building interpreted as a church and the excavation of a richly furnished grave of a young girl, datable to c 680, both excavated inside the Dom. Substantial building activity did not resume until the Carolingian period when the imperial palace was built. Let us look first at the secular western part of the palace. Its core is formed by a large rectangular hall measuring c 26.5m by 12.0m in width. Situated along the middle axis of the hall the foundations of a pillar were uncovered – most probably part of a row of pillars dividing the hall into two

naves. Stratigraphically, the pillar proved to be contemporary with the enclosing walls of the hall. This row of pillars only make sense as a support for an upper storey, thus suggesting that the building was of at least two storeys (Figure 1). To the west the hall was flanked by two small rectangular buildings, followed by a multi-functional complex. The second phase of the building saw the addition of a gallery to the north of the hall, connecting the building with a church situated to the east. Just before it reached the hall the gallery was interrupted by a substantial building situated perpendicular to the hall. It is impossible to reconstruct the exact shape of the building; however, its existence is also important for the following suggestions. The Merovingian church in the east was initially replaced by a larger hall. This hall was extended – in a second phase of building – with a nave that was added on to its northern side and was connected to the imperial hall by the gallery mentioned above. In the third phase another nave was added to the southern side of the hall as well as a transept with an apse.3 So far the archaeological finds and contexts have only provided a relative chronology; let us therefore examine the written sources.4 In 794, before he became emperor, Charlemagne held an imperial assembly and episcopal synod of considerable political importance in Frankfurt. A contemporary source recorded that the assembly stood in a circle (in modum coronae) in the hall of the Sacred Palace (aula sacri palatii) and that Charlemagne’s throne stood on an elevated level. In 822 emperor Ludwig I (Louis the Pious) celebrated Christmas in Frankfurt in buildings newly erected for that purpose (in eodem loco constructis ad hoc opere novo aedificiis). Also, Ludwig’s son, king of the eastern Frankish empire, Ludwig II – Ludwig the German as he was called in the nineteenth century – often stayed at the Imperial Palace. He also renovated the palace church (noviter constructum), which in 852 was dedicated to Salvator (the Church of Our Saviour, or St Saviour’s) by the archbishop Hraban Maurus of Mainz. After this period it is not until the tenth century that we find clear references to the architecture. In 979 the emperor Otto II donated a porticus situated in the west of the palace to the bishop of Worms. Through this porticus a flight of steps led, ascending and descending, to the palace – per quam gradatim ascensus et descensus est in palatium – this is the first written clue for a second storey of the palace building. The sources we have discussed now offer three

1

3

2

Stamm 1955; Hundt and Fischer 1958; Fischer 1975; Baatz and Herrmann 1982; Tiefenbach, Orth and Hampel 1995; Binding 1996, 117–22. Hampel 1994; Lobbedey 1995.

4

171

The reconstruction of a second small apse added shortly after in the west, curiously on an asymmetric axis, has been criticized by Lobbedey 1995. All sources in Orth 1985/96, 178ff.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

options for the reconstruction of a more detailed architectural chronology:

portal. Another source mentions that Charlemagne often visited the church at night (ie, from his bedroom) in order to pray. It has thus been suggested that the so-called portal incorporated the private quarters of Charlemagne.7 Remarkable in this context is the monumental tower-like construction of the building, a construction which also reminds us of the early form of donjons or keeps. The excavations at Ingelheim allow a relatively secure reconstruction of the palace architecture.8 The palace complex consisted of two large courtyards, one built in semi-circular form. Surrounding buildings are as yet difficult to interpret; however, it is certain that in parts they incorporated a gallery facing the two courtyards. For the gallery framing the semi-circular courtyard several excavated capitals – and the remains of a pillar base in situ – show that the gallery definitely took the form of a colonnade. A large building was situated at the apex of the semi-circle which, again, has been interpreted as a monumental gate. Once again I would wish to register some doubt, as only the remains of a high outer wall and no evidence for a thoroughfare or threshold, were found by the excavations. In addition, the early medieval street-plan, which partly originated in Roman times, shows the streets leading past the palace and not orientated directly, or axially, to it or to its proposed entrance. Unfortunately, our present knowledge is unsufficient to allow for a definite revised interpretation of the building apart from calling it a high-status building. What is certain is that in Aachen, as well as in Ingelheim, we are looking at an impressive gallery that was interrupted by a large high-status building. A most substantial early medieval palace existed in Rome, the residence of the Popes at the Lateran.9 This was not replaced by new buildings until the sixteenth century (1586). The palace was situated to the north of Constantine’s basilika, dedicated to ‘Salvator’ – today San Giovanni in Laterano, St John Lateran – and incorporating two centres. The western part incorporated a large, highstatus, ceremonial hall with an apse and was flanked by apsidal bays; the eastern part was home to the residential and administrative quarters (Figure 2). A large hall in the shape of a trikonchos was situated at its centre. The different architectural complexes of the palace were connected by galleries of varying shape, all referred to as porticus in the historical sources. The two halls were given their architectural form by pope Leo III, a contemporary of Charlemagne. Leo III (795–816) also reconstructed the large porticus of the palace entrance which later incorporated the so-called sacred staircase (scala sancta) – up which Jesus had been led to Pilate – and which had allegedly been brought to Rome from Jerusalem by Helena, mother of Constantine. The eastern part of the palace, which was badly decayed by the early sixteenth century and was thus not recorded on the surviving plans of the palace, was renovated by pope Zacharias (741–52). Zacharias also

that the imperial hall was built by Charlemagne beside a contemporary church, the two buildings being connected only by the gallery under Louis the Pious;5 that it is more likely that Charlemagne held his Imperial Assembly inside the buildings of the Merovingian palace, possibly within a temporary wooden structure (according to historical sources Charlemagne visited Frankfurt only once in his lifetime). The synod may have been held inside the already existing second church. According to this argument it was Louis the Pious who rebuilt the palace; that it is certain that Ludwig II completed the reconstruction of the second bigger church. It is more difficult, however, to decide on a date for the construction of the gallery and its cross building. The archaeological excavations revealed that the gallery was only connected to the imperial hall in a second building phase. However, the nave that connected the gallery with the hall already existed before the transept was added to the church. It thus represents an intermediate building phase which can be attributed to either Louis the Pious or Ludwig II. It is only certain that the entire palace complex was completed under Ludwig II and that it has played an influential role in the development of architectural history from then on. In that which now follows the Imperial Palace in Frankfurt is given a place in the history of architecture by discussing the criteria of the gallery in addition to the free-standing building and, especially, the hall with an upper storey. Galleries to free-standing buildings are known from the palaces of Aachen and Ingelheim (Figure 2). In Aachen a long gallery connected the imperial hall to the palace chapel.6 This gallery is seen as the porticus operosa mole (ie, the gallery constructed from stone) which, according to Einhard, was erected by Charlemagne between the chapel and his regia. The gallery was interrupted at its centre by a large building – measuring 15.5m by 27.5m, that is even bigger than the hall in Frankfurt – which has been interpreted as the monumental portal to the palace. Unfortunately, no documentary sources exist to substantiate this argument and the architectural evidence also points against the use of the building as a portal. Excavations failed to provide evidence for the existence of a stepping stone or threshold but, instead, revealed the presence of walls standing to a height of several metres. In order to sustain the idea of the building functioning as a portal, the existence of earthen ramps to surmount these walls had to be suggested. However, the ‘Epos Charlemagne’ – a poem contemporary with Charlemagne – describes how the Emperor gazed from the Imperial Palace (arx) across the baths to the church. This view is only possible from the so-called

7 5 6

8

Schalles-Fischer 1969, 227ff. Binding 1996, 92–5.

9

172

Meckseper 1992. Binding 1996, 99–114. Lauer 1911.

Cord Meckseper: The Imperial Hall at Frankfurt am Main: a Re-Interpretation

added another porticus.10 This porticus is of specific importance as it incorporated a tower with a dining hall (triclinium), located at its top. This tower serves as a special reminder of the situation at Aachen. In 751 Zacharias had confirmed the selection of Pippin, a Frank, to be king, thus assisting the eventual shift of the influence of the Papacy to the west. It is not surprising, therefore, that the palace at the Lateran increasingly influenced the rulers of the time, a fact that is still largely ignored by current research. The situation is similar concerning our second problem: the origin of a high-status ceremonial upper storey. The early stages of its development can also be observed in the palace at the Lateran. A very precise description of a pope’s election in 687 describes without doubt the existence of a second storey. What has not been taken into account until now is that Leo III’s apsidial hall was also situated on a first floor.11 According to historical sources it represented the vertical extension of the late antique Basilica Iulia. An order for the emperors election (Ordo Censius II) from the first half of the twelfth century describes how the emperor ascended to the papal hall and how the empress descended into the Basilica Iulia. This shows that at Rome two superimposed high-status ceremonial halls existed as early as 800. This architectural model obviously did not yet possess any great influence under Charlemagne. On the other hand, the three large identical halls known from the Carolingian period originated in the eighth century, ie, shortly before the construction of the hall of Leo III in Rome. They only possessed one storey: in Aachen this is proved by examination of the remains which survive in the medieval town hall. At Ingelheim it is shown by the imperial hall partly still surviving today, and in Paderborn it was shown by archaeological excavations.12 The written sources also do not reveal any hints for the Carolingian period. In the ninth century, however, the arrival of a double storey becomes visible. The great hall of the Bodman Palace at the Bodensee (Lake Constance) originated towards the middle of the ninth century.13 Within the hall two pilasters point to a large beam which carried the floor of an upper storey. The existence of this upper storey is also reinforced by the thickness of the surrounding walls of the hall. We are now in a time contemporary with the great hall at Frankfurt. The question of the origin of a high-status ceremonial upper storey has been discussed very little by European scholars until now.14 If the palace at Cheddar in Wessex – c 850 – really possessed an upper storey with a representative function, it is a problem which may be more appropriately discussed by British architectural historians. I will therefore continue to concentrate on examples from the Continent.

So far in this article I have concentrating on great halls. But there are countless accounts of rooms which are called solarium in the written sources. The meaning of this word is by no means straightforward. Looking at the context it becomes clear that a solarium may describe a loft, upper room, veranda, gallery or platform. Nearly all sources also make it clear that the solaria are architectural building-blocks of smaller buildings which were not representative great halls like those discussed in this article. One of these buildings, for example, is the abbot’s lodging depicted on the famous plan of St Gallen. I would also like to include the small so-called king’s hall of one of the rural seats of the Visigothic king Ramiro I (c 850), situated near Oviedo, in northern Spain. Here, the lower storey took the form of an almost cellar-like substructure rather than a hall in its own right. In any case, solaria still represent a very important aspect of our discussion. Even in the eastern Frankish empire of the Ottonian kings and emperors of the tenth century the few great halls known to us consisted of only a single storey. Examples are the halls in Duisburg, Werla and Tilleda.15 However, one written source from the first half of the tenth century mentions in Henry I’s reign (919–36), a coenaculum, a high-status ceremonial hall painted with a mural of a battle against the Hungarians in 933, in the upper storey of the palace at Merseburg. In contrast, the great hall of the palace of Otto I (Otto the Great) in Magdeburg, built around 950, was obviously designed to be a monumental two-storey building.16 Excavations in the 1960s revealed a highly differentiated complex situated next to the cathedral. This site clearly shows the existence of a hall divided into two naves. To the west it was flanked by two apses which met at the portal at the apex of the hall: a very impressive entrance construction. What is even more important is that at the eastern side of the hall two round staircase-towers were situated. These towers prove without a doubt that the hall had an upper storey, most certainly in the form of another hall.17 In the late Ottonian period, finally, the architectural evidence for an upper storey of great halls is increasingly found.18 What we should look at next is the chronology of the multi-storey complex in the western Frankish empire where the development is very much independent. The best example is the well-known excavation of Michel de Boüard at Doué-la-Fontaine.19 Here, a hall – built c 900 – received an upper storey in 930–40, about the same time that the palace at Magdeburg was built. Without doubt, Doué-la-Fontaine has to be understood as an important example in the history of the development of the donjon (keep). Although there is as yet insufficient architectural evidence for this period in France, recent work on the château of Mayenne promises to yield important results; a

10

15

11

16

Meckseper 1992, 108–9. Meckseper, forthcoming. 12 Binding 1996, 89-92, 105–9 and 125–6. 13 Binding 1996, 138–41. 14 Renoux 1991, 274f.; Albrecht 1995, 22–5; Thompson 1995, 43–9; Meckseper 1996.

Binding 1996, 150–4 (Duisburg), 168–78 (Werla), 179–90 (Tilleda). Lehmann 1983; Binding 1996, 155–61. 17 Meckseper 1986. 18 For example Zürich (Lindenhof) und Paderborn II: Binding 1996, 131– 7 and 127. 19 Boüard 1973–4.

173

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

quadrangular building of several storeys – dating probably to the tenth century – was constructed from Roman stone recuperated from the town of Jublains.20 Towers, by contrast, are described in written sources from as early as the ninth century and increasingly in the tenth century.21 A more recent source describes a tower, plus oratorium, in Compiègne, which was said to belong to Charles the Bald who was crowned emperor in 875. Charles the Bald had used the palace chapel in Aachen as a blueprint for his own.22 Is it possible that he also modelled his tower on the palace at Aachen, most notably on the monumental building – or tower – situated in the centre of the gallery of Charlemagne’s palace? Another tower, even described as regal (turris regiae domus), was built in the tenth century by Louis IV – also known as Louis d’Outremer (936–54) – at his residence at Laon, where he had been inaugurated, and which was the most important western Frankish residence. When Charles, duke of Lorraine, conquered and fortified Laon he ordered the tower to be heightened and fortified by surrounding ditches. In 951 we know of the destruction of several towers of Lotharingian noblemen by the Conrad, duke of Lorraine. In the period 958–63 towers are mentioned as seats of important noblemen in both Coucy and Chalonsur-Marne; towers built by Thibault I in Blois, Chartres and Chinon, are also known. All the sources suggest that these were not purely defensive towers but already buildings with a particularly residential character (toursrésidences).23 I would suggest that all these towers represented multi-storey halls. As examples may not survive in France, the tower at Xanten should be mentioned, built by Bruno, archbishop of Cologne and brother of Otto the Great.24 Bruno may have encountered this type of building during his political campaigns in the western Frankish empire. What does this short survey mean for Frankfurt? If we try to follow lines of development within architectural history, it is not enough to describe phenomena purely statistically. At all times new buildings used very specific models that had a special meaning to its builder as, for example, symbols of power. We need, therefore, to attempt to form valid genealogies and look for their origins. This article represents such an attempt. Aachen and Ingelheim – as residences of Charlemagne – and the palace of the Lateran in Rome – as the residence of the Pope, and surely simply as a symbol of the power of Rome – may have provided the model for the palace at Frankfurt. In the late Carolingian period Frankfurt became important in its own right. Together with Regensburg, it was the second residence of Ludwig II (833–76). During his long reign of forty-three years the eastern part of the Frankish empire was being consolidated, in contrast to the

western Frankish empire of his brother Charles the Bald who encountered increasing problems with his noblemen.25 Under Ludwig the Younger, son of Ludwig II, Frankfurt was known as the main residence of the eastern empire (principalis sedes orientalis regni). Around fifty years later it became the second main residence of Otto the Great.26 Did Frankfurt inspire him to build his palace at Magdeburg with two storeys? Until the late Carolingian period the Frankish empire was still understood as an entity; Frankfurt continued to be visited by noblemen from the west. Therefore, I do not think it impossible that the great hall in Frankfurt may also have played a role in the development of the donjon in the West. As a result I am certain that, in the ninth century, it was the palace at Frankfurt which helped to transmit important architectural ideas from the early Carolingian period to the tenth century. What is not certain is whether all this would be of any interest to the latter-day bankers of Frankfurt! ABSTRACT There exists at the great imperial palace of Frankfurt on Main, a great hall of two storeys and a covered gallery, together with intermediate buildings; precursors are cited at Aix-la-Chapelle, Ingelheim and the Lateran palace in Rome. This great palace probably represents an important stage in the development of the great hall, a contemporary example from eastern Frankish territory and representative also of the donjons of western France. RÉSUMÉ Il existe dans le grand palais impérial de Francfort-sur-leMain une grande salle à deux étages, avec une galerie couverte, ainsi que des bâtiments intermédiaires, dont on trouve des signes précurseurs à Aix-la-Chapelle, Ingelheim et au palais du Latran, à Rome. Ce grand palais représente probablement une étape importante dans le développement des grandes salles. C’est un exemple contemporain des châteaux du territoire franc oriental, que l’on retrouve aussi dans les donjons de la France de l’Ouest. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Die Pfalz in Frankfurt am Main besitzt für ihren zweigeschossigen Saalbau und ihre Galerie mit Zwischenbau Vorstufen in Aachen, Ingelheim und im Lateranspalast in Rom. Die Pfalz stellt möglicherweise eine wichtige Entwicklungsetappe hin zu den Saalbauten jüngerer Zeit im ostfränkischen Reich und zu den Donjons im westfränkischen Reich dar. Bibliography Albrecht, U 1995. Der Adelssitz im Mittelalter. Studien zum Verhältnis von Architektur und Lebensform in Nord- und Westeuropa, Munich/Berlin

20

For references to recent work on the château of Mayenne, see the Introduction, supra. 21 Fournier 1978, 59; Renoux 1991, 274–7. 22 Kaiser 1979. 23 Mesqui 1991, 106ff. 24 Borger and Oediger 1969, 168ff. The tower in Soest dates from a good deal later: Wenzke 1990, 84–148.

25 26

174

Brühl 1995, 353ff. Brühl 1995, 495–6.

Cord Meckseper: The Imperial Hall at Frankfurt am Main: a Re-Interpretation

Göttingen O 1955. ‘Zur karolingischen Königspfalz Frankfurt am Main’, Germania, 33, 391–401 Thompson, M 1995. The Medieval Hall, Aldershot Tiefenbach, H, Orth, E and Hampel, A 1995. ‘Frankfurt’, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, ed J Hoops, 2nd ed, 9, 462–70 Wenzke, B M 1990, ‘Soest. Strukturen einer ottonischen Stadt’, Dissertation Universität Bonn

Baatz, D and Herrmann, F-H (eds) 1982. Die Rümer in Hessen, Stuttgart Binding, G 1996. Deutsche Königspfalzen. Von Karl dem Grossen bis Friedrich II (765–1240), Darmstadt Borger, H and Oediger, F W 1969. Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte des Xantener Viktorstiftes, Düsseldorf Boüard, M de 1973–4. ‘De l’aula au donjon, les fouilles de la motte de la Chapelle […] Doué-la-Fontaine (Xe–XIe siècles)’, Archéol méd, 3–4, 5–110 Brühl, C 1995. Deutschland-Frankreich. Die Geburt zweier Völker, 2nd edition, Köln/Wien Fischer, U 1975. ‘Altstadtgrabung Frankfurt am Main’, Ausgrabungen in Deutschland, 2, 426–36 Fournier, G 1978. Le Château dans la France médiévale, Paris Hampel, A 1994. Der Kaiserdom zu Frankfurt am Main. Ausgrabungen 1991–3, Nussloch Hundt, H-J and Fischer, U 1958. ‘Die Grabungen in der Altstadt von Frankfurt am Main 1953–1957’, Neue Ausgrabungen in Deutschland, 391–408 Kaiser, R 1979. ‘Aachen und Compiègne: Zwei Pfalzstädte im Mittelalter’, Rheinische Vierteljahrblätter, 43, 100–119 Lauer, Ph 1911. Le Palais de Latran. Étude historique et archéologique, Paris Lehmann, E 1983. ‘Der Palast Ottos des Grossen in Magdeburg’, in Möbius, F and Schubert, E (eds), Architektur des Mittelalters, Weimar, 42–62 Lobbedey, U 1995. Hessisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte, 45, 380–3 (Critical Review of Hampel 1994) Meckseper, C 1986. ‘Das Palatium Ottos des Grossen in Magdeburg’, Burgen und Schlösser, 27, 101–14 Meckseper, C 1992. ‘Das ‘Tor- und Gerichtsgebäude’ der Pfalz Karls des Grossen in Aachen’, in Jansen, M and Winands, K (eds) Architektur und Kunst im Abendland, Rom, 105–113 Meckseper, C 1996. ‘Oben und Unten in der Architektur. Zur Entstehung einer abendländischen Raumkategorie’, in Hipp, H and Seidl, E (eds), Architektur als politische Kultur: philosophia practica, Berlin, 37–52 Meckseper C, forthcoming. ‘Zur Doppelgeschossigkeit der beiden Triklinien Leos III. im Lateranpalast zu Rom’, Forschungen zu Burgen und Schlössern, 3, München/Berlin Mesqui, J 1991–3. Châteaux et enceintes de la France médiévales. De la défense […] la résidence, 1–2, Paris Orth, E 1985–96. ‘Frankfurt’, in Die deutschen Königspfalzen, (ed) Max-Planck-Institut für Geschichte, 1, Göttingen, 131–455 Renoux, A 1991. Fécamp. Du palais ducal au palais de Dieu. Bilan historique et archéologique des recherches menées sur la site du château des ducs de Normandie (IIe siècle AC – XVIIIe siècle PC), Paris Schalles-Fischer, M 1969. Pfalz und Fiskus Frankfurt,

Stamm,

175

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 Frankfurt am Main. The Imperial Palace : a reconstruction

176

Cord Meckseper: The Imperial Hall at Frankfurt am Main: a Re-Interpretation

Figure 2 Comparative palace plans

177

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

178

Muenzenberg (Hesse) and its relationship to later twelfth-century castles by

Bettina Jost In Germany the ‘classic noble castle’ originates in the middle of the twelfth century. Such castles are mostly situated above steep cliffs and possess a relatively short enclosing ring-wall within which lie the great hall, chapel and dependent buildings. A keep is the most secure point of the site and the entrance is protected by a defensible gateway. These castles are mainly found in the possession of the high nobility, but the palatine residences of the Hohenstauffen kings show little difference. During the course of the third quarter of the twelfth century only a few members of the lower nobility erected ostentatious and elaborate castles, but the ministerialis Imperii, Kuno I von Muenzenberg, constructed such a castle – on the formerly unsettled Muenzenberg to the south of Giessen – between the early 1150s and the mid 1160s.1 He is, consequently, the first ministerialis Imperii to build a contemporary castle of this type (Figures 1 and 2). Kuno I von Muenzenberg is generally acknowledged as being one of the most powerful ministeriales Imperii of his day.2 First recorded 1152–5 and again at the beginning of the thirteenth century, he is to be found in the entourage of the emperor Frederick I and his son Henry VI. At the Emperor's court he served as camerarius and was thus partly responsible for that ruler’s financial administration, playing an important role at court. Estates of the family of the ministerialis Imperii Kuno I von Muenzenberg are scattered throughout the Wetterau. From the late eleventh century centres of these estates can be found in the area of Muenzenberg and Arnsburg to the south of Giessen, as well as to the south of Frankfurt, around Dreieichenhain, and in Frankfurt Sachsenhausen.3 Kuno’s family estates thus lie in an area regarded as part of the terra Imperii of the Hohenstauffen kings. At the time of the building of the castle – the mid 1160s – Kuno I von Muenzenberg had secured a position of power, equalling that of his father. His rise to one of the most powerful ministeriales Imperii of Emperor Friedrich I was, however, only the beginning. In the 1170s Kuno came into the inheritance of the counts (comes) of Nuerings and was able to secure his position in the Wetterau, so that by the end of the twelfth century he had reason to fear the high nobility.4 However, the technically ‘unfree status’ of the family remained a social barrier separating them from other – almost as powerful – noble families in the Wetterau, of which the noble family (Edelfreie) of Buedingen is but one example.5

Castle building raises many questions of which the perceived status of the builder is a major factor. Was Kuno I von Muenzenberg simply building in the style of his time, reflecting his unfree status, or was he actually anticipating his future rise in the social scale? Was he subconsciously influencing the evolution of the castle? What is the relationship between Muenzenberg and the palatine residences and castles of the twelfth century? Is Muenzenberg typical of a less important ruler, or does it compete with the buildings of the high nobility? To answer these questions we must compare individual buildings and parts of Muenzenberg with similar castles of the period. At Muenzenberg approximately half the inner court was surrounded by a perimeter wall, starting at the great hall and ending on the north side, close to the keep (Figure 1). Ashlar facing was capped by mouchettes, a lavish form of construction, the remaining area being protected by low walls or barriers. The perimeter, or ringwall, was not completed until the second part of the thirteenth century, by the heirs of the von Muenzenbergs; it was at this time that a great hall (pales) was erected on the north side, the so-called Falkensteiner-Bau (Figure 2). The Muenzenberg ring-wall displays a long tradition of walling in permanently inhabited castles dating from late Carolingian times. Numerous castles of the second half of the twelfth century display parts of the ringwall; most of these walls, however, have neither ashlar facing nor mouchettes. Use of ashlar is found throughout Germany from the middle of the twelfth century as, for example, in the donjon of Hoch-Egisheim/Alsace (1147), or in the keep of the Drachenfels, near Königswinter/Rhine (1149).6 However, only a few ring-walls dating from the third quarter of the twelfth century are faced with ashlar. The technique is found only in the palatine residence of Hagenau (after ?1170) and, more certainly, in the palatine residence of Gelnhausen (mid-1160s–early 1170s); it is also found in the moated castle of Buedingen, between Muenzenberg and Gelnhausen (last quarter of the twelfth century). Mouchettes have only been authenticated in the ring-walls of the third quarter of the twelfth century, but can be assumed to have been in evidence at some other castles and on town walls. The Muenzenberg ring-wall is the first proven ring-wall in the Wetterau; mouchettes were used to improve the appearance of this castle. Already by the end of the twelfth century idealized descriptions of castles occur in Hartmann von Aue’s Arthurian romances ‘Erec’ and ‘Iwein’, in which reference is made to strong walls topped with mouchettes.7 Here we have a hint of the function of mouchettes as a backcloth to court ceremony,

1

Jost 1995, 84–97; Binding 1963. Bosl 1950–1, 64, 66, 69 et seq, 113, 128, 290–6; Gruber and Küther 1968. 3 Kropat 1965, 45, 50, 79; Schwind 1972, 45; Jost 1995, 35–8. 4 Simon 1865, 9, Nr 5, Chronica Regia Coloniensis cum Continuationibus a Monasterie S. Pantaleonis Scripsit, MGH US, 17, 167. 5 Spieß 1992. 2

6 7

179

Jost 1995, 156–60. Wiesinger 1976; Wiesinger in Patze 1976. For example, ‘Erec’ by Hartman of Aue: ‘den berchete in gevangen / ein brucmure hoch und dic / ein ritterlicher aneblic / ziertez husinnen / ez rageten vur die zinnen / turne von quadern groz’, Erec Vers 7845–7850.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 Wimpfen (where it may be as late as the 1230s).8 Another style of façade may be observed in different great hall complexes during the second half of the twelfth century, namely, a series of double-arched window openings – or multiple-arched windows – offering wide views on to the landscape. The feature may be observed in a castle at Dankwarderode in Brunswick, the residence of Henry the Lion (1164–6); in the great hall – the Landgrafenhaus of the Wartburg; as well as at Burg Weißensee. Both these latter structures are significant buildings of the landgraves of Thuringia. That this feature is already present in great hall complexes of the first half of the twelfth century is evidenced by the great hall of Castel Tirol near Meran (1138) where double- and triple-arcaded windows open on to the landscape. The plan of the rooms of the great hall complex at Muenzenberg consists of six equally large rooms under a single roof. This constellation of rooms can be understood as a stringing together of rooms of similar size, where different functions did not demand rooms of different sizes. This is a feature not found in other great halls of the period. In contrast, the great hall of Gelnhausen, as well as that of the Landgrafenhaus of the Wartburg, incorporate rooms of different sizes, where size was determined by function. Thus, at first-floor level in the great hall of Gelnhausen one finds a visible separation between the two smaller rooms with wall cupboards, or bed alcoves, and the considerably larger common hall, which boasts an elaborate chimney-piece and can be considered to be the principal reception room of the Emperor. Room-planning of the Muenzenberg great-hall complex must be regarded as old-fashioned. Decoration of the inner rooms is lavish, with two elaborate chimneypieces, in addition to ornamented mouldings. It can only be compared with the palatine residence of Gelnhausen, where the chimney-piece was flanked by two ornamented surfaces, probably the sites of the thrones of emperor and empress. In the Landgrafenhaus of the Wartburg were columns with high-quality ‘eagle’ capitals and ornamented wall-consoles. It may be assumed that other twelfthcentury great halls also featured high-quality interior decoration further examples of which have not survived, because of the large-scale destruction of these buildings.9 Kuno I von Muenzenberg equipped his great hall with lavish – and by no means usual – forms of decoration, which served to record his claim to be an important ruler in the Wetterau. The great hall is a visible expression of his claim to power. Because of this, the wall facing the valley can be interpreted as demonstrating this claim, visible far into the landscape. Visitors to the castle were also intended to be impressed by the unusual façade of the inner court, which also demonstrated his importance. Adjoining the Muenzenberg great hall is the chapel, standing over the gate in the east. This gateway

strengthening the interpretation of the Muenzenberg ringwall as a symbolic element in the building; mouchettes do not appear to have had a strategic function in the middle of the twelfth century. The Muenzenberg ring-wall is thus an elaborate element of the building, without parallel in the Wetterau. No similar buildings dating from the period are known elsewhere in Germany. The great hall of Muenzenberg is a well-preserved twelfth-century building under a single roof, but divided by a central wall; two parts, known respectively as the east and west great halls, each have three rooms above (Figures 3 and 4). Basement and first-floor rooms can only be approached from the outside through doorways decorated with a trefoil arch (Figures 3 and 4). Rooms at secondfloor level, whilst possibly connected, were also accessible directly from the outside. Windows, showing several arches in a rectangular frame, determine the façade facing the inner court, whilst two double-arched windows, and an eight-voussoir arch, punctuate the ashlar facing of the wall towards the valley. Both rooms at first-floor level were heated by elaborate chimney-pieces from which ornamented mouldings extended, partly surrounding the rooms. Whilst the Muenzenberg great hall displays features found repeatedly in the great halls of the second half of the twelfth century, elements here are used uniquely. The façade facing the inner court seems less structured than it might be in the buildings of royalty and high nobility. Nor is the structure of the inner rooms entirely reflected in the form of the façade of these buildings. At Gelnhausen a series of openings – which are interrupted by elaborately worked trefoil arches at firstfloor level – give on to the inner court, while at secondfloor level a similar series of arches might have been interrupted by two round-arched openings with reveals. The sub-division of the adjoining rooms – hall and two living-quarters connected by a gallery – cannot be detected by examination of the façade. The same applies to the palatine residence of Goslar and that of the Wartburg at Eisenach, the most important fortress of the landgrave of Thuringia. The Muenzenberg court façade thus seems oldfashioned by comparison with later buildings cited; nevertheless, the arched windows in their elaborately ornamented rectangular framing are an innovative feature. No comparative examples of this type of window – from which its evolution might be elucidated – is known, but it is notably repeated in the moated castle of Buedingen in the Wetterau, as well as in the great hall of the abbey of Konradsdorf. This form of window opening serves to emphasize the appearance of the façade when seen closeup (Figure 4). The Muenzenberg valley façade is dominated by a large eight-voussoir arch, a feature in existence at the court of the archbishop in Trier in the first half of the twelfth century. It is also present in the archbishop’s palace at Cologne, built by Rainald von Dassel (1157–67) as well as in the palatine residence of

8

9

180

Such an archway is also to be found at the so called ‘Graue Haus’ at Winkel/Rhine, c 1160, at first-floor level. Meyer-Barkausen 1958; Wiedenau 1983, 290–4. Ornamented pieces of stone have been found in Kaiserslautern and Wildenberg. Hotz 1963, Abb, 75; Hotz, 1992, T 4.

Bettina Jost: Muenzenberg (Hesse) and its relationship to later twelfth-century castles

leads under the choir of the chapel, while the nave stands above a storage room. A gallery in the nave – and accessible from the second floor of the great hall – permitted the châtelain, Kuno I von Muenzenberg, to follow the Mass set apart – and above – his social inferiors. There are no direct comparisons for this planning of the Muenzenberg chapel. The gatehouse chapel, erected at Donaustauf c.1060–1070 – a fortress of the bishops of Regensburg – lies above a small gateway and an adjacent small room that was accessible from the great hall.10 This structure is similar to the chapel of Muenzenberg, but it cannot be considered to be a precise parallel. The Muenzenberg conception can be found on a larger scale in the palatine residence of Hagenau. This chapel, known only from recent excavation and description (and dated by dendrochronology to 1172 ± 6 years) was built at a later date than Muenzenberg. It was a three-storey building, distinguished by both a lower and an upper chapel, as well as an upper gallery. The choir of the lower chapel was adjacent to a gateway which, in turn, was spanned by the choir of the upper chapel. In Muenzenberg the gallery may be considered to be a third level. At Hagenau the storage rooms adjoining the gateway have been replaced by a chapel room. The Muenzenberg chapel-plan is a precursor of that of Hagenau. Parallels to the double chapel of the imperial castle in Nuremburg (late twelfth century), where there is a gallery as well as a separate entrance from the great hall, may also be observed.11 Parallels regarding the possibilities of entrance and the western gallery can be found in the double chapel of (Bonn) Schwarzrheindorf.12 The royal chancellor – later archbishop of Cologne – Arnold von Wied erected a double chapel with a western gallery from which he, or a noble guest, was able to follow the service set apart from other participants. He was also able to reach the gallery by a separate entrance, just as was Kuno I von Muenzenberg. The latter thus used an existing type when building his chapel, also evidenced in the mountain chapels of both the kings and a future archbishop. The Muenzenberg chapel is placed at the narrow side of the great hall and accessible from it. This structure is typical of the building of castles and palatine residences from the tenth century onwards and is found especially in royal buildings and those of the high nobility. It is present in the following structures: the palatine residence of Duisburg (tenth century); Xanten (fortress of the archbishop of Cologne, eleventh century); Bamberg (king or bishop of Bamberg, eleventh century); Donaustauf (fortress of the bishops of Regensburg, 1060–70); Hersfeld (monastery or king, after 1042); Tirol (ducal family, 1138); Muenzenberg, palatine residence at Hagenau (1170s); the imperial castle at Nuremburg (?late twelfth century); and the palatine residence at Wimpfen (?1230s).13 Kuno I von Muenzenberg used a layout already well-established in

buildings of the high nobility and recognizably ostentatious. The eastern edge of the south side the Muenzenberg keep is of rubble masonry. Originally planned to be on the eastern side, it was then built further to the south. Almost 29m high it is attributed to the Romanesque period, evidenced by the four round-headed windows. Only a single small round-headed window, overlooking the gate, lit the tower in the twelfth century. Functions of keep and donjon are to be carefully distinguished. The keep commonly serves to protect the castle and used for both observation and defence.14 Intended mainly for defence, it was erected on a strategically important side of the castle structure, to protect either a vulnerable flank or an especially endangered part of the gate. The keep, erected principally for defence, is built on either a rectangular or a circular ground-plan. In contrast the donjon primarily serves the needs of daily life, combining defence with utility.15 Permanent occupation requires that donjons should be well lit, with many windows; these structures provided the principal living quarters of the nobility and the powerful ministeriales Imperii between the late eleventh century and the middle of the twelfth century.16 Castles of the high Middle Ages developed out of these tower castles in a process that is not entirely understood and which is found mainly in buildings of the late twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. A separation between defence and living functions seems to have arisen during this process of development of the castle of the high Middle Ages. Functions uniting the donjon (Wohnturm) separated it from the keep (Bergfried), a building evolved purely for defence and developed next to the living quarters and the great hall.17 Dating of keeps is difficult as they show little ornamentation; they can be dated only on the basis of written sources or of the circumstantial structure. The following early keeps are noteworthy: the two towers on a circular ground-plan of the Egerer Markgrafenburg, which was supposedly erected shortly before the purchase of the Egerland by the Emperor Frederick I in 1167; the fivecornered tower of the fortress of Archbishop Hillin of Trier on the Ehrenbreitstein, above Koblenz, between 1152 and 1162; the keep built on the rhomboid ground-plan of the Oberburg Manderscheid in the Eifel in 1166; a keep on a rectangular ground-plan, covered with squared ashlar, built on the Drachenfels – at Königswinter above the Rhine – in 1149; the round tower of Arnsburg – the principal castle of the ministerialis Imperii of Hagen-Arnsberg Muenzenberg near Muenzenberg – of 1150. Other keeps built before the 1160s have not survived. Those that have been described as ‘salic’ (eleventh century) are only tentatively dated, seemingly built circa 1200; the round tower of the 14

Jost 1996; Karl Heinz Claßen, ‘Bergfried’, in RDK II, 269–74; Binding, ‘Bergfried’. In LMA I, Sp 1955 et seq; Maurer 1967, 82. Binding, ‘Donjon’, in LMA III Sp 1248 et seq; Jost 1995, 113–6. 16 Maurer 1967, 96–9; A. Wiedenau, 1979, 9–22, 206–22 referring to arx and turris as forms of living accommodation for powerful families in large towns. 17 Maurer 1967, 85, 111.

10

15

Stevens 1978, 172–9; Jost 1995, 110 with notes 467 et seq. Stevens 1978, 106; Schürer 1929, 160, 164; Jost 1995, 121–3, 128 with note 515. 12 Verbeek 1953. 13 Jost 1995, 113–16. 11

181

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Harzburg above Goslar, or the ‘Dicke Heinrich’ of Querfurt castle, are but two examples.18 It would thus seem that the Muenstenberg keep, together with the others along the Rhine, dates from the beginning of the development of this type of building. Muensterberg is the first keep built on a hill in the Wetterau and, moreover, the first intended for permanent noble residence. Perhaps it is to be compared with the Eger Markgrafenburg, demolished during construction of the palatine residence at Eger in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. Other named keeps were erected in the context of a minor fortification, even when intended to be principally symbolic. The Muenzenberg east tower was not a strategic necessity (defence of the gate from the tower is not possible) and one must assume that it was a modern building erected primarily for show. It is an almost unique in the Wetterau amongst the buildings of evolving castle structures. This keep illustrates the modernity of the Muenzenberg castle structure and thus of its builder, Kuno I von Muenzenberg: the keep demonstrates its builder’s claim to an elevated social position. At the same time the Muenzenberg castle stands apart from the castles of the lower nobility and of the ministeriales Imperii of the time, mostly consisting of a donjon accompanied by some minor adjoining buildings. The placing of the keep further to the south – and not on the originally planned site on the straight east side – is also to be understood as an attempt to increase show. The eastern keep would have been situated relatively far away from the other buildings erected by Kuno I von Muenzenberg; if it had been built on its original site, it is now closer – even though the distance to the gate is still fairly considerable due to the working quarters built in between. Persons approaching the castle from the south are confronted by the display façade. This southern façade is bordered on the one side by the west great hall – ashlar faced – and on the other by the keep. Thus the impression of display is extended and augmented by an innovative and uncommon element in castle building. The quasi-noble position of Kuno I von Muenzenberg is also manifested in by the adoption of forms only appropriate to royal status, especially in the chapel. In addition, he uses up-to-date – and also expensive – forms of construction for his keep, previously only used by the archbishops of Cologne and Trier and by the margraves of Egerland. In addition, the Muenzenberg keep forms, for the first time, an integral part of a noble castle, together with the great hall and the gate-chapel-complex. So far we have not mentioned buildings whose owners belonged to the social class of Kuno I von Muenzenberg. Here Wildenberg castle, near Armorbach in the Odenwald, and the moated castle of Buedingen, between Muenzenberg and Gelnhausen, are relevant,19 both later than Muenzenberg. Built in the last quarter of the twelfth century, these are structures like Muenzenberg. They display massive unbattlemented ring-walls; a keep at Buedingen of c 1200 and of which only the ground-plan is

known; a lavishly-covered ashlar keep at Wildenberg; and an ashlar-faced great hall, repeating the room-division of Muenzenberg in a simpler form, built in Wildenberg to give a good external view by the insertion of many windows. A tower gatehouse, with chapel above, stood at Wildenberg; the small church at Buedingen is sited on the narrow side of the great hall (just as in Muenzenberg). One has the impression that Muenzenberg is more ostentatious – and more concerned with external appearances – than either Buedingen or Wildenberg. It must be remembered, however, that Muenzenberg is older than the other two castles. The noble families of Durne at Wildenberg and that of Buedingen modelled their castles on those of the high nobility, but the details – the lavish chimney-pieces, the ornamentation and siting of gates and chapels – are simpler that similar features at Muenzenberg. Muenzenberg is thus an early castle in which the builder used forms elsewhere used in royal castles and those of the high nobility. The influence of such buildings is especially visible in the great hall where impressive eight-bay arcade is paralleled, for example, in the great hall of the archbishop of Cologne and at the palatine residence at Wimpfen. The keep is based on contemporary keeps of the archbishops of the Rhine valley and of the margraves of Egerland. An unusual and ostentatious castle thus develops, demonstrating the claim to power of its builder, the ministerialis Imperii – Kuno I von Muenzenberg – far and wide. All in all, is not to be seen as a mere fortified structure but as an ostentatious status symbol, to use Werner Meyer’s formula. Who conceived of, and initiated, the castle structure? The suggestion that Kuno I von Muenzenberg designed the structure of the castle – with the aim of aping the appearance of the castles of the high nobility, thus demonstrating his quasi-noble status – is difficult to resist. A lavish keep, the ornamentation of the great hall and costly ornamented mouldings, can only be explained by a conscious decision on the part of the builder. Craftsmen can only have carried out his instructions. There is, however, no proof for this assumption, but one of the earliest building contracts supports this hypothesis. In October 1242 Count Robert III of Dreux signed a comprehensive latin contract with the master Nicolaus de Bello Monte Rogeri (Beaumont-le-Roger, near Bernay-surEure).20 Master Nicolaus is ordered to build a castle near Dreux, the tower of which is to be like that of the castle of Nogent-le-Rotrou (Eure-et-Loire). For the construction of the associated buildings we also find clear instructions relating especially to defence, e.g. the height of the ringwall, with parapet and mouchettes, and the building of small towers. Living quarters were not within the brief of Master Nicolaus. The contract also mentioned lesser works, such as the smoothing and plastering of walls, as well as the solid and expert construction of a bridge. The 20

18

Jost 1996, 8 et seq. 19 Faust 1928; Demandt 1955; Hotz 1963; Steinmetz 1988; Eichhorn 1966.

182

Mortet, Victor and Deschamps, Pierre, Recueil de Textes relatifs à l’histoire de l’architecure et à la condition des Architectes en France, au moyen âge, XIIe–XIIIe siècles, Paris 1929, 233–5, No. 114 [Translation by Binding 1993, 154].

Bettina Jost: Muenzenberg (Hesse) and its relationship to later twelfth-century castles

obligations of the builder, the count of Dreux, include arrangements for obtaining and transporting stone, sand, lime and water, as well as providing wood for scaffolding. Such obligations are also laid down, in addition to payment, for the master craftsman in personal charge of the building site.21 Robert III of Dreux’s contract thus gives detailed instructions of the construction of buildings approximately seventy years after the building of Muenzenberg. The Dreux document is of great importance: even if it cannot be assumed that a similar contract existed between Kuno I von Muenzenberg and the master craftsman at Muenzenberg, it should be stressed that contracts detailing specific models and constructional elements may have existed for Muenzenberg.22 Kuno I von Muenzenberg may have exercised an important influence in the construction of his new principal castle, demanding a complex southern façade, primarily for show, as well as lavish decoration of the great hall.

principalement la propriété de grands seigneurs, mais les palais des rois Hohenstauffen sont semblables. Le ministerialis Imperii Kuno I von Muenzenberg a construit un tel château sur le site autrefois innocupé de Muenzenberg, au sud de Giessen, entre le début des années 1150 et le milieu des années 1160 : c’est le premier ministerialis Imperii à avoir construit un château de ce type à cette époque. Muenzenberg est un château précurseur dans lequel le constructeur a utilisé des formes utilisées ailleurs dans les châteaux royaux et ceux des grands seigneurs. L’influence de tels édifices est spécialement visible dans la grande salle où l’impressionnante galerie à huit baies se retrouve, par exemple dans la grande salle de l’archevêque de Cologne et dans la résidence palatine de Wimpfen. Le donjon s’inspire de donjons contemporains appartenant aux archevêques de la vallée du Rhin et aux margraves d’Egerland. Nous avons ainsi un château inhabituel et prétentieux qui proclame haut et fort la soif de pouvoir de son constructeur, le ministerialis Imperii Kuno I von Muenzenberg. L’un dans l’autre, il ne doit pas être considéré comme une simple structure fortifiée, mais comme le symbole d’une attitude pleine de prétention.

ABSTRACT In Germany the ‘classic noble castle’ originates in the middle of the twelfth century. Such castles are mostly situated above steep cliffs and possess a relatively short enclosing ring-wall within which lie the great hall, chapel and dependent buildings. A keep is the most secure point of the site and the entrance is protected by a defensible gateway. These castles are mainly found in the possession of the high nobility, but the palatine residences of the Hohenstauffen kings are similar. The ministerialis Imperii, Kuno I von Muenzenberg, constructed such a castle – on the formerly unsettled Muenzenberg to the south of Giessen – between the early 1150s and the mid 1160s, the first ministerialis Imperii to build a contemporary castle of this type. Muenzenberg is an early castle in which the builder used forms elsewhere used in royal castles and those of the high nobility. The influence of such buildings is especially visible in the great hall where impressive eight-bay arcade is paralleled, for example, in the great hall of the archbishop of Cologne and at the palatine residence at Wimpfen. The keep is based on contemporary keeps of the archbishops of the Rhine valley and of the margraves of Egerland. An unusual and ostentatious castle thus develops, demonstrating the claim to power of its builder, the ministerialis Imperii – Kuno I von Muenzenberg – far and wide. All in all, is not to be seen as a mere fortified structure but as an ostentatious status symbol.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG In Deutschland stammt die 'klassische Adelsburg' aus der Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts. Diese Burgen sind meist auf Steilklippen gelegen und besitzen eine relativ engumfassende Ringmauer, innerhalb derer die große Halle, Kapelle und Wirtschaftsgebäude liegen. Der Bergfried ist der sicherste Punkt der Anlage und sein Eingang wird durch ein gut zu verteidigendes Tor geschützt. Solche Burgen befanden sich meist im Besitz des Hochadels, die Pfalzen der Staufer sind jedoch vergleichbar. Der ministerialis Imperii Kuno I. von Münzenberg ließ auf dem zuvor unbesiedelten Münzenberg südlich von Giessen eine solche Burg errichten zwischen den frühen 1150er und den mittleren 1160er Jahren, der erste kaiserliche Ministeriale, der eine zeitgenössische Burg dieses Typs baute. Münzenberg ist eine frühe Burganlage bei welcher der Bauherr Formen übernahm, die ansonsten bei königlichen Burgen oder solchen der Hocharistokratie Verwendung fanden. Der Einfluss solcher Gebäude ist besonders augenscheinlich bei der großen Halle, wo beispielsweise die eindrucksvolle achtteilige Arkade Parallelen bei den großen Hallen des Kölner Erzbischofs und der Kaiserpfalz in Wimpfen findet. Der Bergfried basiert auf zeitgenössischen Bergfrieden der Erzbischöfe des Rheintals und der Markgrafen vom Egerland. Eine solchermaßen ungewöhnlich und prunkvoll gestaltete Burg demonstriert den Machtanspruch ihres Bauherrn, des kaiserlichen Ministerialen Kuno I. von Münzenberg, weit und breit. Alles in allem, sollte man es nicht als reinen Verteidigungsbau, sondern als ein auffallendes Statussymbol betrachten.

RÉSUMÉ En Allemagne, le « château noble classique » apparaît au milieu du XIIe siècle. De tels châteaux sont pour la plupart situés au-dessus de falaises abruptes et possèdent une muraille relativement petite, à l’intérieur de laquelle on trouve la grande salle, la chapelle et les dépendances. Le donjon est le point le plus sûr du site, et l’entrée est protégée par une porte défensive. Ces châteaux sont 21 22

Pitz 1986, 63–6; Binding 1993, 82 et seq. Jost 1995, 244–50.

183

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Erhaltung der Runneburg in Weißensee, 2, Weißensee, 5–13 Kropat, W A 1965. Reich, Adel und Kirche in der Wetterau von der Karolinger- bis zur Stauferzeit. Schriften des Hessischen Landesamtes für geschichtliche Landeskunde, 28, Marburg LMA. 1980–. Lexikon des Mittelalters, München, Zürich Maurer, H-M 1967. ‘Bauformen der hochmittelalterlichen Adelsburg in Südwestdeutschland, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des Burgenbaus’, Zeitschrift für Geschichte des Oberrheins, 115, 61–111 Mauer, H-M 1972. ‘Der Burgenbau als Gesinnungsausdruck und Herrschaftssymbol’, Schwäbische Heimat, 23, 124–30 Meyer, W 1976. ‘Die Burg als repräsentatives Statussymbol’, Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte, 33, 173–81 Meyer-Barkhausen, W 1985. ‘Das “Graue Haus” zu Winkel im Rheingau’, Mainzer Zeitschrift, 53, 1– 20 Nahrgang, K 1970. ‘Dreieichenhain. Königshof, Burg, Stadt’, Burgen und Schlösser, 51–60 Pitz, E 1986. ‘Das Aufkommen der Berufe des Architekten und Bauingenieurs. Baubetrieb und Baugewerbe insbesondere nach unteritalienischen Quellen des 13. Jhs.’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 66, 40– 74 RDK 1937–. Reallexikon zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte. Begonnen von Otto Schmidt, Stuttgart Schürer, O 1929. ‘Romanische Doppelkapellen. Eine typengeschichteliche Untersuchung’, Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 5, 99–192 Schwind, F 1972. Die Landvogtei in der Wetterau. Studien zu Herrschaft und Politik der staufischen und spätmittelalterlichen Könige. Schriften des Hessischen Landesamtes für geschichtliche Landeskunde, 35, Marburg Simon, G 1865. Geschichte des reichsständischen Hauses Ysenburg und Büdingen, 3, Das Ysenburg und Büding’sche Urkundenbuch, Frankfurt am Main Spieß, K H 1992. ‘Ständische Abgrenzung und soziale Differenzierung zwischen Hochadel und Ritteradel im Spätmittelalter’, Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter, 56, 181–205 Steinmetz, T 1988. ‘Die stauferzeitliche Burg Prozelten und ihre Beziehung zur Wildenburg’, Burgen und Schlösser, 22–36 Stevens, U 1978. Burgkapellen im deutschen Sprachraum. 14. Veröffentlichung der Abteilung Architekturgeschichte des Kunsthistorischen Instituts der Universität zu Köln, Cologne Verbeek, A 1953. Schwarzrheindorf. Die Doppelkapelle und ihre Wandgemälde, Düsseldorf Wiedenau, A 1983. Katalog der romanischen Wohnbauten in westdeutschen Städten und Siedlungen. Das Deutsche Bürgerhaus, 34, Tübingen Wiedenau, A 1979. Romanische Wohnbauten im Rheinland. 16. Veröffentlichung der Abteilung

Bibliography Becker, W 1959. Die romanischen Baudenkmäler der Stadt Weißensee in Thüringen, Berlin (Ost) Biller, T 1993. Die Adelsburg in Deutschland: Entstehung, Form, Bedeutung, Munich Binding, G 1963. Burg Münzenberg in der Wetterau: eine staufische Burganlage, Schriften zur Kunst-, Musik- und Literaturwissenschaft 20, Bonn Binding, G 1993. Baubetrieb im Mittelalter, Darmstadt Binding, G 1995. ‘Wohnbauten in staufischen Pfalzen und Burgen’, in Busse, W G (ed), Burg und Schloß als Lebensort in Mittelalter und Renaissance, Düsseldorf, 83–107 Binding, G 1996. Deutsche Königspfalzen 765–1240, Darmstadt Böhme, H W 1991. ‘Burgen der Salierzeit in Hessen, in Rheinland-Pfalz und im Saarland’, Burgen der Salierzeit, 2, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Monographien 26, Sigmaringen, 780 Bosl, K 1950–1. Die Reichsministerialität der Salier und Staufer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des hochmittelalterlichen deutschen Volkes, Staates und Reiches, 2. Schriften der MGH, 10, Stuttgart Demandt, K E 1955. ‘Die Herren von Büdingen und das Reich in staufischer Zeit’, Hessisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte, 5, 49–84 Eichhorn, W 1966. Die Herrschaft Dürn und ihre Entwicklung bis zum Ende der Hohenstaufen, Winterthur Faust, L 1928. Das Schloß Büdingen, Darmstadt (Frankfurt 1929) Herrmann, F R 1989. Arnsburg, Gemeinde Lich, Lahn-Dill-Kreis. Römisches Kastell, Burgstall, Kloster. Führungsblatt zu den Denkmälern und ihren erhaltenen Überresten. Mit: Neue Ergebnisse zur Arnsburg. Stand Sept. 1985. Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen, Wiesbaden Hinz, H 1981. Motte und Donjon. Zur Frühgeschichte der mittelalterlichen Adelsburg. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, 17, Bonn Hotz, W 1963. Burg Wildenberg im Odenwald. Ein Herrensitz der Hohenstaufenzeit, Amorbach Hotz, W 1992. Pfalzen und Burgen der Stauferzeit. Geschichte und Gestalt, 3rd ed, Darmstadt Jacob, E 1936. Untersuchung über Herkunft und Aufstieg des Reichsministerialengeschlechts Bolanden, Giessen Jost, B 1995. Die Reichsministerialen von Münzenberg als Bauherren in der Wetterau im 12. Jh. 55. Veröffentlichung der Abteilung Architekturgeschichte des Kunsthistorischen Instituts der Universität zu Köln, Cologne Jost, B 1996. ‘Das Aufkommen des Bergfrieds im 12. Jh.’, Burgen und Schlösser, 2–15 Kirchschlager, M, and Stolle, T 1993. ‘Einige forschungsgeschichtliche Betrachtungen zur Runneburg’. In: Castrum Wißensee. Festschrift zur 825-Jahr-Feier der Runneburg in Weißensee. Schriftenreihe des Vereins zur Rettung und 184

Bettina Jost: Muenzenberg (Hesse) and its relationship to later twelfth-century castles

Architekturgeschichte des Kunsthistorischen Instituts der Universität zu Köln, Cologne Wiesinger, P 1976. Die Burg in der mittelhochdeutschen Dichtung. In: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Anzeiger 113, no 1–25, 78–110 Wiesinger, P 1976. ‘Die Funktion der Burg und der Stadt in der mittelhochdeutschen Epik um 1200’, in Patze, 211–66

185

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 Muenzenberg. Ground-floor plan. After Binding

Figure 2 Muenzenberg. Ground-floor plan of the twelfth-century castle. After Binding

186

Bettina Jost: Muenzenberg (Hesse) and its relationship to later twelfth-century castles

Figure 3 Muenzenberg. Reconstruction of the south-side and the great hall. After Binding

Figure 4 Muenzenberg. Reconstruction of the great hall. After Binding

187

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

188

The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy by

Edward Impey This is the famous tower, huge and very strong, which Albereda, wife of Raoul, count of Bayeux, built, and which Hugh, bishop of Bayeux and brother of John, archbishop of Rouen, held against the Dukes of the Normans for a long time. They say that the said noble lady had the architect Lanfred, whose praise had exceeded all the workmen then in France, beheaded after she had completed the above mentioned fortress with much and magnificent work – this being after he had served as master of works for the construction of the tower at Pithiviers – so that he should not build another like it elsewhere. At last she was herself killed by her husband, because she had tried to shut him out also from the same fortress. Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, c 1130.

those of a ‘great keep’ in 1965,5 it was only during the site clearance of 1967–82 that the true form and extent of the remains was revealed.6 Its real importance was first indicated in print in 1991.7 What follows is an attempt to describe the ruins and discuss their phasing, dating, and function, and the nature of the building they represent, concentrating on the ‘Great Tower’ as originally planned (Period Ia) and as altered shortly afterwards or during construction (Period Ib); the building’s immediate surroundings, later medieval alterations, and the rest of the castle site are treated only in summary. A final section comments briefly on the significance of the early building for the study of the ‘Great Tower’ in general.

INTRODUCTION Famosa in the time of Orderic, the turris at Ivry-la-Bataille deserves to be so once again. It has, first of all, the largest footprint of the known ‘Great Towers’ in continental Europe. Secondly, dating from around 1000, it is perhaps the Duchy’s oldest medieval secular building of which remains still stand. Thirdly, in plan and dimensions it is strikingly similar to the most famous example of the type – the White Tower in London. The scale, type and even the existence of such a building may also, in time, shed some new light on the nature, resources and personalities of the ducal family and the Norman aristocracy at the turn of the first millennium. Orderic’s description of the tower at Ivry in the Historia Ecclesiastica and references to it interpolated into William of Jumièges’ Gesta Normannorum Ducum2 have ensured it a place in most histories of Normandy and fortification since the mid nineteenth century: Ivry’s strategic position, and its involvement both in the dynastic struggles of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries and the Hundred Years’ War have also led to its repeated mention by contemporary and later historians, but for more than five hundred years after its slighting in 1449,3 the building itself remained little more than a memory. Although the ruins were identified with Lanfred’s tower in 1898,4 and as

THE TOWER: DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION THE SITE Ivry-la-Bataille lies on the west bank of the Eure, about 28km south-east of Evreux and 60km to the west of Paris. The castle site, overlooking the town from the top of a wooded escarpment, extends over the narrow spur at the extreme south-east end of the Plaine Saint-André. The main approach is by a track climbing the western flank of the promontory from the Place de l’Église, created for vehicle access in 1973.8 At the core of the site lie the ruins of the Great Tower, flanked to the north, west and north-west by the remnants of a towered and buttressed curtain wall or chemise (Figure 2). The main bailey extended over about two hectares of the wooded slope to the south; careful investigation in the 1970s traced the line of its curtain wall,

1

Haec nimirum est turris famosa, ingens et munitissima, quam Albereda uxor Radulfi Baiocensis comitis construxit, et Hugo Baiocensis episcopus frater Iohannis Rotomagensis archiepiscopi contra duces Normannorum multo tempore tenuit. Ferunt quod prefata matrona postquam multo labore et sumptu sepefatam arcem perfecerat. Lanfredum architectum cuius ingenii laus super omnes artifices qui tunc in Gallia erant transcenderat, qui post constructionem turris de Pedveriis magister huius operis extiterat, ne simile opus alicubi fabricaret decollari fecerat. Denique ipsa pro eadem arce a viro suo perempta est, quia ipsum quoque ab eadem munitione arcere conata est. (Orderic Vitalis, ed Chibnall, iv, 290). The author is grateful to Jeremy Ashbee for the translation above. 2 The first critical edition of the Historia Ecclesiastica appeared 1838– 55 (Le Prévost); the edition used below is Marjorie Chibnall’s of 1969– 80. This important passage was also published in Mortet and Deschamps, i, 276. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum, first published by Duchesne in 1619, was re-edited by Marx in 1914; the edition used below is that of Elisabeth Van Houts (1992–5). 3 Joulain 1991, 15–16. 4 Régnier 1898, 61.

5

Davison 1969, 39. The site was cleared between 1967 and 1982 by members of the Club Archéologique d’Ivry under the leadership of Monsieur Robert Baudet. Since 1982 the ruins have been under the protection of the Commune and the Société des Vielles Pierres (successor to the Club). Monsieur Baudet describes the operation as a dégagement rather than an archaeological excavation (pers comm). 7 Mesqui 1991–3, i, 106–107 and 116–118; see also Mesqui 1998, 112. 8 Robert Baudet, pers comm.

6

189

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

apparently without towers (although a map of 1765 suggests that there may have been one on the east side)9 and located some structures within it. The historic approach to the castle, from the level or gently rising ground to the north, was controlled by a wide and deep ditch crossing the neck of the promontory below the north wall of the chemise, a narrower ditch further north, and the massive bank between them; still further north, a third ditch follows a similar alignment, but stops short of the promontory’s eastern side. The earthworks are probably of various dates and can be variously interpreted, but in their final form protected a complex entrance route leading, via a bridge across the southern ditch, to the twin-towered Period III gatehouse at the west end of the north chemise. THE TOWER: SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF LAYOUT AND PHASING

external. It is also clear that most of the pre-Period II fabric at Level 2 (L2) belongs to the same secondary build (referred to below as Period Ib). The extent of the secondary work identifies it either as a major rebuild, perhaps required by a collapse or demolition, or simply the completion of the early building to a modified scheme: which actually occurred may never be established, but the fundamental similarities between the fabric of the two periods suggests that, if Period Ib was a rebuild, it followed soon after the original construction. The construction sequence of the Great Tower relative to that of the chemise and the infilling between them remains unclear, although could probably be determined by excavation. All that can be said at present is that the chemise is probably earlier than or contemporary with Period Ia, that at least some infilling (enough to block the Level I openings) took place in Period Ib, and that the remainder dates from Period II (below).

Layout

Period II

In plan the ruins form a single block measuring 25.00m east-west and 32.00m north-south, with an apsidal projection at the north end of its east side, and walls as much as 3.75m thick, reinforced by square buttresses. The eastern side of the building is complicated by later additions and alterations, which have left only the lowest part of the apse intact. The interior is split by a spine wall running north-south, 3.00m thick, and the western half occupied by a single space measuring c 26.70 x 10.75m (Room 1, Level 1). The eastern part, 5.00m wide, is split into three sections (Rooms 2–4, Level 1). Whilst the castle was still functioning the space between the Great Tower and its chemise was infilled, raising the ground to as much as 2.00m above the original internal floor level: the fill backed up against the chemise remains in place, but the remainder was removed to expose the outer faces of the Tower’s north and west walls in the period 1967–82.

A series of alterations to the early fabric, at least approximately contemporary, can be identified and attributed to the late twelfth or early thirteenth centuries on the basis of their general form and the type of masonry employed. The greatest changes were made on the eastern side. The interior of the apse and the southernmost 3.5m of R2/L1 were packed with solid masonry, and the remaining spaces (R2/L1, R3/L1 and R4/L1) vaulted over. The original doorway between R1/L1 and R2/L1 was re-lined, and a stair created within the thickness of the wall between R2/L1 and R3/L1, blocking the embrasure of the Period Ia south-facing window. More drastic alterations were made externally at the north-east corner, the front of the Period 1a apse being cut back and a straight north-south wall, raised on a batter, being laid over its remains; the new wall terminated at its north end in a three-quarter round tower, c 5.75m across. At Level 2, a massive pier of solid masonry was built up over the packing, surrounded by a shooting gallery – less than 1.00m wide, but equipped with recesses in the rear wall to allow the archers to manoeuvre: the remainder of R4/L2 (above the vaulted section of R4/L1) was reduced to a small windowless cell, accessible only from R1/L2. At least the upper part of the infill between the chemise and the main building may be contemporary with Period II, as it is respected by the three-quarter round tower. These alterations were no doubt required or encouraged by the complex events of the late twelfth and early thirteenth century; they may, in particular, date from after the capture of the castle by Philippe Auguste in 1193, and have been carried out by his vassal Robert d’Ivry after the peace of Gaillon in 1196;10 the creation and the design of the prominent three-quarter round tower may have been prompted by the cylindrical donjons philippiens, then

Phasing: Periods Ia and Ib Most of the Great Tower’s surviving fabric and most of its layout, including the apsidal projection, belongs to a single primary phase (Period 1a). But it is also clear that the original plan was significantly altered before the major twelfth-century rebuild described below as Period II: this is evident from the markedly different facing of the south wall and the southern section of the east wall, and the fact that the space occupied by Room 2/Level 1 (R2/L1), overlooked by two original windows, must once have been 9

The ruins of the castle are not shown to scale or in detail on the earliest known map (Plan et figure de l’emplacement de l’ancien château d’Ivry et friches contigus . . . le 21 Février 1765, Archives Départementales de l’Eure-et-Loir, E 144, 1, recto), although the ditches across the promontory to the north of the site, the northern gatehouse, the northern D-shaped tower and the north-east tower – all attached to the chemise – are sketched in with a brush. One of the eastwest walls across the bailey and a mural tower may also be indicated. I am grateful to Monsieur Jean Paul Corbasson for studying and copying this material on my behalf.

10

190

For notes on the family of Ivry and the fortunes of the castle at this period see Joulain 1991, 10–12. The capture of Ivry in 1193 is mentioned in Guillaume le Breton’s Philippidos, ed Delaborde, ii, 113; on the general context of this event see Bradbury 1998, 106–114 and Gillingham 1978, 232–3.

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

being built in large numbers throughout the kingdom.

Period Ia: Room 1/Level 1

Period III

In its Period Ia form, as now, the north end of R1/L1 was 10.75m across, widening, in its present form, to 11.50 at its south end. The original north-south dimension, however, is uncertain, as the whole of its south wall and the southernmost 4.00m of its west wall belong to Period Ib (Figure 3). The external entrance to R1/L1 is to the north. This takes the form of a barrel-vaulted passage, 0.84m wide and 1.85m in height from floor to soffit, without any trace of rebates for a door or other means of closure. A second doorway opens out of the east wall into R2/L1. This was altered in Period II, but the remains of the original eastern head, retaining a single complete stone voussoir and two of brick, still survive springing from the north jamb. Its original width is unknown.R1/L1 was lit by four west-facing windows, the three complete ones exhibiting deep and wide internal splays, smaller ones to the exterior, and apertures from 50 to 20cm wide without any traces of rebates for shutters or other fittings. What remained of the external head to the northern window in 1995 showed that it was turned in alternating brick and stone voussoirs, although the rere-arch had been lost; the external head of its neighbour to the south, of the same design, remained complete, although the rere-arch here too was gone. The rere-arches of both windows and the damaged external head were rebuilt, with brick and stone voussoirs, in 1997. The third window, south of the broad buttress, retains its original external arch (without bricks) intact, although here too the rere-arch was lost by 1995 and has been rebuilt. The fourth window, at the south end of the wall, blocked and largely destroyed in Period Ib, is represented by the southern half of its external head, composed of seven thin stone voussoirs, a massive springer, and three stones of the jamb on the same side – below which others are probably concealed by the remaining infill.12 A fifth window opening into R2/L1 (originally exterior), is of a quite different form: here the embrasure, carried down to ground level, 1.58m deep and 1.75 wide, is square; although the wall has been destroyed below the level of the opening itself, it almost certainly took the form of the more complete example which lit R3/L1 (below).

The earliest alterations to the Great Tower and chemise after Period II, probably in the fourteenth century, included the placing of a massive rubble-built D-shaped tower against the east wall of the Great Tower, of a twin-towered gatehouse at the west end of the north arm of the chemise, and a of second D-shaped tower against its west side. The surviving stretch of bailey curtain wall, similarly built, may also belong to this period. Later Alterations and Additions At a still later date, the tower at the north-east corner of the chemise was built (or more probably rebuilt) with a facing of dressed flint and vertical limestone chaînages, an annexe added to the Great Tower to the south, a stair turret built into the south-east corner of R1/L1, leading from Level 2 upwards, and a Level 2 doorway inserted at the extreme south end of the west wall, opening onto a straight stair descending to Level 1; these alterations may not be contemporary, but on the basis of their comb-tooled ashlar and a pyramid-stop on a door jamb of the southern annexe, may be attributed to the late fourteenth or the fifteenth century. Still later, a confused series of outworks were placed along the entire eastern length of the Great Tower, but there are no traces of post-medieval alterations to the building itself. The slighting of 1449 almost certainly marked the end of its defensive or residential use. DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION IN DETAIL: PERIOD IA Materials and Construction The Period Ia fabric is composed, as is that of later periods, of a hard white limestone, quarried on the lower slopes of the Eure valley at Ivry or a little to the north.11 The distinguishing feature of its use in Period Ia is a generally consistent and regular use of herringbone coursing, laid in a fine but friable mortar. Ashlars, almost certainly re-used Roman material, occur almost only in the buttresses; occasional use has also been made of large terracotta slabs, up to 60mm thick and 40cm long, almost certainly Roman suspensurae, most of them incorporated in the buttresses flanking the north-west corner (Figures 7, 8). The door and window openings are defined in shaped blocks of the same limestone, and their external voussoirs, in all but two examples where the heads survive, alternate with bricks (Figures 7, 10). Carefully framed and lintelled holes for round putlogs (average diameter 10-12cm), some passing through the entire wall thickness, identify building lifts at intervals of about 1.00m (Figure 6).

11

Room 3/Level 1 For reasons explained elsewhere, it is clear that the space at the south-east corner of the Great Tower was originally external to the building, but the room immediately to the north, R3/L1, is quite clearly original. This is shown, in spite of having been substantially altered in Period II, by the consistent character of the regular herringbone facing to (at least the lower parts of) its four walls, the bonded junction between the south wall and the spine wall, and the form of its two windows. The entrance to R3/L1 is at the extreme west end of its south wall. At 1.49m wide and 1.86m high from the

I am grateful to Dr Bernard Worssam for the identification of the stone, a recrystallised chalk, probably from Breuilpont or Bueil, respectively 12km and 6km north of Ivry.

12

191

The remains of the fourth window, revealed by some additional dégagement in 1998, were first observed by Paul Drury in April 1999.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

R4/L1 is through the two arches opening out of R3/L1, the eastern one being partly blocked by the Period II packing: direct lighting could only have come from windows in the apse or the eastern section of the north wall. Although the existing floor level (0.90-1.00m below that of R1/L1 and R2/L1), dates from the removal of infill in September 1968,13 it must be either at or above its original height as the internal wall facing extends down to it, although whether the excavators dug down to an arbitrary level or a buried surface is not clear. The exterior of the building at this point is of the greatest interest. The outer face of the north wall may have followed the alignment of the main north front, but if so would have been as much as 75cm thicker than any other. Equally likely, at least, is that it stepped back at this point – in which case the patch of ashlar facing to the east of the fourth buttress may be interpreted as the face of a secondary buttress articulating the angle – but at and to the north of this point the Period Ia work becomes concealed by the infill and the remains of the Period II glacis).14 The base of the Period II turret also completely conceals the north-east corner of the Period Ia building, but on the eastern side the plan can once again be traced; although the Period II remodelling saw the demolition of the Period Ia structure at this point at and above Level 1, its remains, revealed in 1972, are still to be seen protruding from the made-up ground between the Period II east front and the later retaining wall to the east. The inner line of the apse, buried by the Period II glacis, cannot be traced, but the outer face, together with at least the partial outline of four radiating buttresses, is clearly visible and could be plotted with great precision. The eastern flank of the south-facing buttress is also visible in elevation, where exposed by a later latrine shaft (Figure 9).

sill to the springing of its arch, this is much larger than the other complete Period I opening, but similar to it in having had no door rebates. Both internal and external heads are missing, so that whether these were composed of alternating brick and stone voussoirs is unknown. To the north, R3/L1 opens into R4/L1 through two arches carrying the massive cross-wall at Level 2, springing from a central pier. The room was lit by two windows, both similar to the east-facing window in R1/L1, and both also later blocked. The southern opening is represented by its rerearch, 1.65m wide and 2.73m high from sill to soffit and turned in thin slabs of split limestone, entirely complete although walled up.The external head has been robbed, but the survival of the two lowest courses of its external jambs show that it was 130mm wide and as much as 1.00m high. The blocking of the rere-arch was brought about by an unusual operation in Period II – the carving-out of a straight stair within the thickness of the wall, descending to a doorway in the reveal of the Period I entrance to R2/L1; the rere-arch and square embrasure were necessarily filled in, but the external opening and the splayed embrasure immediately behind it retained to light the steps. The second window, at the south end of the east wall, was evidently of the same form. In this case the south jamb of the square embrasure survives largely intact, but only a part of the north side – associated with its internal corner – remains; the damage occurred in Period II, with the insertion of the existing barrel vault and the partial blocking of the embrasure to seat the springing of a transverse rib. The rere-arch of the embrasure is concealed by the Period II vault, but the splayed embrasure to the light itself is represented by most of its northern reveal, together with the springing and two stone voussoirs of its rere-arch. Part of the southern reveal also survives. The layout of the room itself is thus entirely clear, but the precise detailing of the south-eastern external corner to this projecting block is not. Although the existing east-facing buttress can be interpreted as a flanking buttress, as found at the Period Ia building’s north-west corner, it is not axial to the room’s south wall, so that the south-facing buttress must have been of a different and more massive type (Figures 3, 4): unfortunately the point at which the buttress and the Period Ib wall might be expected to join is concealed by the Period III tower, and on the inside the crucial point is hidden by Period II refacing.

Period Ia: Level 2 Most of the surviving fabric at this level can be attributed to the rebuilding (or renewed efforts) of Period Ib, or clearly belongs to Period II. Period Ia: reconstructing the building The Great Tower’s remains show that it was almost certainly free-standing, and only the position of the south wall remains uncertain. At Level 1, the western half was probably taken up by a single room with a floor area of at least c 285m2 (R1/L1), lit by three windows on its west side and one to the east, and reached from the exterior through a narrow doorway to the north and a much larger one to the east; alternatively, the extra breadth of the third west-facing buttress may have signalled a timber-framed partition wall, although its main purpose was probably to carry a mural fireplace in the room above. As the western space is so wide, the floor overhead must have been propped (as would that of any upper rooms), no doubt by a

Room 4/Level 1 Room 3/Level 1 is adjoined to the north by R4/L1. In its present form the space measures only 4.15m by 4.10m, reduced to a rectangle by the mass of masonry inserted into its eastern section in Period II, but in its original form probably included the full interior volume of the apse, and so extended as much as 7.40m further east (Figures 3 and 4); that the apse was original, and originally hollow at this level, is indicated by the existence and the construction of the corner formed by its south wall and the east wall of R3/L1, exposed by damage to the blocking. Access to

13 14

192

Ex inf Robert Baudet. Paul Drury suggests that the wall may have been thickened in Period Ib (pers comm, April 1999).

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

spine of posts running down the centre of the room – a feature which would account for the off-centre positioning of the north door.15 The eastern half contained two compartments, entered through what was then an external doorway, in the south wall of R3/L1. Lit by a window in its south wall and another facing east, R3/L1 in turn opened out into R4/L1 (to the north) through an open two-bay arcade (intended to carry a masonry wall above). The original form of R4/L1 is obscured by the infilling and truncation of the apse (Period II), but there may have been windows at the east end. Orderic’s use of the word turris undoubtedly implies conspicuous height, but as he knew the building only in its Period Ib form, this may not necessarily have been a feature of the primary structure. Nevertheless, the massive nature of the walls alone suggests that the Period Ia building had (or, if Period Ib simply represents a change of plan, was intended to have had), at least one upper floor. Although the layout of a Period Ia Level 2 would have followed the essentials of the one below, how many other floors there may have been, and how they communicated with each other, is a matter for speculation only: all that can be said is that the proportions of the vast western space (or spaces) and the apsidal-ended R4/L2 suggest that the Level 2 rooms may have risen through at least twice the height of the one below. Some indication of the building’s elevational appearance is given by what remains, by other buildings of the period, and Roman models such as the walls and towers of Le Mans or Senlis: in particular, it can be suggested that the windows would have been larger at each successive level, and that the brick-voussoir motif was repeated at the upper levels of the building, possibly accompanied by horizontal tile-courses. The main surfaces were probably rendered, as traces of a whitish mortar skim survive in places at the base of the walls (Figure 7).

domestic use. Nevertheless, at the very least a residential capacity is implied if it is accepted that the structure was defensible, and it is hard to believe that such vast internal spaces as survive, and even more so those above them, would not have been exploited for residential use. This is not to say, however, that the tower was the only, or even the primary, high-status residential building on the site. Particularly if the building was conspicuously tall in relation to its width, its designer must have been aware of its likely visual impact, not just due to its size but also to its site, which must have made it a major landmark. Its sheer structural presence would been complemented by a more subtle message based on the association of great towers and lordship, long established by their widespread construction at princely sites by the early eleventh century. Period Ia: Internal Organization The Period Ia building has no identifiable adaptations for defence or for display other than its solidity, size and decoration, so that speculation as to the function of individual interior spaces is restricted to their possible domestic uses. In attempting to do so it must be borne in mind that, apart from the dark, unheated Level 1 rooms which can be assumed to have been for storage, the function of only one room – that which can be assumed to have overlain R4/L1 – is actually suggested by its plan. Perilous analogies with the White Tower or the keep Colchester apart, its east-west orientation and apsidal end – in the absence of any other explanation for a tower at the building’s least vulnerable corner – almost certainly identify it as a chapel.16 Assuming that it did form a selfcontained residence (at least for the higher echelons of the castle’s inhabitants), this identification encourages that of the vast western first-floor space (R1/L2) – so far as we can infer its existence or intended existence in Period 1a – and its smaller neighbour to the east (R3/L2) as a hall and chamber respectively, in accordance with their relative proportions and the assumption that the accommodation of any major medieval residence was based around these three key elements.17 Further questions arise, however, if we assume that there was, or was meant to be, a second floor: if so, was there (or would there have been) a truly functional distinction between the first and second floors, or were they used for similar purposes by different sections of the household? According to the first interpretation, the upper level rooms, more private than those below, could have served as dormitories or bedrooms, as may have been the arrangement at Loches (c 1030),18 was the arrangement (for what it is worth in this context) of the celebrated

Period Ia: Function: Stronghold, residence and symbol Whether the Period Ia building was actually completed or not, the remains imply that three main functions were at least intended: to provide a refuge, to serve as a residence, and to impress. With regard to how far the building might have been intended (and how effective it might have been) as a fortress, the main source of information is the structure itself. The massive construction of the building combined with its relatively inaccessible site means that it could – regardless of the extra security which may have been provided by the chemise – have been defensible in itself; the ground-floor doorways should not, as they might in the case of a twelfth-century building, be taken to show that this was not the intention. That the building had a residential function cannot be proven on structural or archaeological grounds. No occupation layers were identified within or associated with the structure during the dégagement, and there are no features such as garderobes or hearth indicative of 15

16

There is no documentary evidence for this identification as a chapel. As this part of the Great Tower was rebuilt in the twelfth century (Period II), the castle chapel mentioned by Eudes Rigaud in 1250 must have stood in the bailey (Registrum Visitationum Archiepiscopi Rothomagensis, ed Bonnin, 70). 17 Mesqui has termed this the ‘programme palatial’: he, however, interprets R1/L1 as ‘une salle résidentielle dès le rez-de-chaussée, voisinant les éspaces de stockage sous les chambres et la chapelle’ (Mesqui 1991–3, ii, 53, 125 and 111). 18 Mesqui 1998, 98–9.

I owe this observation and the suggestion that R1/L1 was partitioned to Paul Drury. No archaeological evidence for posts was observed during the dégagement (Robert Baudet, pers comm).

193

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 turriform domus of about 1120 at Ardres19 and is implied by some English great towers of after 1100.20 A differentiation of function between these levels on hierarchical lines is suggested by analogy with an arrangement common among high-status residences in Germany and France from at least the mid-twelfth century21 and, given that all floors must have shared the same plan, the ease with which the Great Tower could have been so used; a single-height Level 2 could in this case have contained hall, chamber and chapel for the use of one section of the household, rooms at ‘Level 3’ serving identical functions for another – socially superior, or reserved either for the lord or his wife.

1006–11,24 had a son called Hugh, bishop of Bayeux25 and a wife called Albereda.26 Nevertheless, the attribution of a tower to Raoul and/or Albereda is not attested by literary sources or charters27 – a problem which needs to be considered. The first source which might have been expected to help is Dudo of Saint-Quentin’s De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniae Ducum, not least as according to both the author28 and William of Jumièges, Count Raoul was his principal source29 – yet Dudo’s narrative makes no reference to a castle or tower at Ivry, even in the verse section extolling the Count and his achievements.30 The reason is not simply that Dudo ignored fortifications,31 so that the omission needs some explanation – such as that his text, written 1010–25,32 predates the building of the tower, or that the building’s history or existence were in some way to the Count’s discredit. But more significant, perhaps, is Dudo’s failure not only to mention the tower, but Ivry itself, which puts that of his buildings there into perspective. The original text of William of Jumièges’ Gesta Normannorum Ducum of the 1050s,33 the third major source for early Norman history, does refer to the castellum at Ivry, but it neither describes it as a tower nor explains its origins.34 Yet while these omissions do nothing to support the story of the building of a tower by the Count and/or Albereda, they do nothing to undermine it, and it remains at least a valid basis for further investigation. The second question posed above, concerning the identity of the site, is raised largely by the existence of the ‘Butte Talbot’, a small earthwork enclosure on the eastern edge of the promontory about half a mile to the north, which could be seen as an alternative. The site described above, however, is not only the better situation for a castle, but, unlike the butte, exactly fits Orderic’s situation of the tower ‘on the crest of the hill overlooking the town’.35 Further support for this identification is to be found in the answer to the final question, concerning the building’s date: as for stylistic reasons (below), it is incredibly unlikely to postdate Orderic’s writing, and structural details show it to have

Period Ia: Dating and Attribution Although some scope may exist both for the C14 dating of charcoal inclusions in the mortar and for further investigation of stratigraphic and finds-related evidence, for present purposes the only means of dating the Great Tower lie in its historical, architectural and stylistic context. Period Ia: Historical and Textual Evidence The essential written source for the origins and the date of the Great Tower is the passage of Orderic’s Historia Ecclesiastica cited above, which, if taken at face value, would allow the building to be dated by reference to what is known of Raoul and Albereda. But before examining its implications in detail, a number of questions to do with the reliability of the source and the identification of the ruins need to be addressed. First, how far can Orderic be trusted that either of this delightful couple built a tower at Ivry at all? Second, is the site in question necessarily that known, or known by repute, to Orderic in the twelfth century? Third, how far can Orderic be trusted in his assumption that the tower which was famous in his own day was indeed the one built by the Count, and not in the interval between the Count’s death and the 1130s? With regard to the basic reliability of the passage, although Orderic is fairly criticised for the ordering of his text, Marjorie Chibnall,22 Pierre Bouet23 and other scholars have emphasised his wide range of sources and critical faculties in their use. His careful disclaimer here of Lanfred’s involvement and his fate by the phrase ‘they say’ (ferunt), both illustrates this capacity and lends authority to the more important information in the previous sentence. In addition, there is at least no doubt that the circumstances and personalities behind the story really existed: Raoul, son of William Longsword’s widow Sprota and her second husband Asperleng, possessed the lordship of Ivry, had been referred to as Count (Comes) at least by the period

24

Douglas 1946, 132. Bates 1973. The Count’s wife is referred to as Albreda in a charter of 990 (Recueil, ed Fauroux, 86–9, no 13). 27 Although a charter was witnessed in the castellum of Ivry in about 1034 (Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Père de Chartres, ed Guérard, i, 143). 28 Dudo of Saint-Quentin, ed Lair, 125; trans Christiansen, 11. 29 The Gesta Normannorum Ducum opens with a dedicatory letter in which the author states: ‘I have drawn the first part of the narrative down to Richard II from the history of Dudo, a skilled man who diligently sought out from Count Rodulf, brother of Richard I, what he wrote down for posterity’ (William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, i, 5–6). On Dudo as a historian see trans Christiansen, xiii-xxiii, and Bouet 1985, 18. 30 Dudo of Saint-Quentin, ed Lair, 125–6. 31 Dudo makes far fewer references to fortifications than historians of the next century, but still mentions thirty-three; see Flori 1997, 262. 32 Bouet 1985, 18. 33 The traditional date of William of Jumièges’ Gesta is 1070–71. Van Houts, however, has shown it to be a work of the 1050s (i, xxxiii– xxxv). 34 William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, ii, 52. 35 In supercilio montis eidem castro imminentis (interpolation into the Gesta, ed Van Houts, ii, 226). 25 26

19

Mortet and Deschamps, Recueil des textes, i, 183–5. Rochester, Norham, Corfe and Hedingham may be examples. For German examples see Bettina Jost, in this volume. Another important example is the (restored) Wartburg in Saxony (see Swoboda 1969, 201–20; Asche 1962). 22 Orderic Vitalis, ed Chibnall, i, 29–115. 23 Bouet 1985, 24. 20 21

194

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy remained in use until the fifteenth century,36 to argue that it is not the turris referred to by Orderic is to imply, absurdly, that there were two great towers at Ivry in the 1130s. If, then, the identity of the site and the essentials of Orderic’s story are accepted, the Great Tower can be dated to the period in which Raoul and/or Albereda could have built it. If we believe Benoît of Saint-Maure and Robert of Torigny’s claim that Raoul came into Ivry as a gift from his half-brother, Duke Richard I (impressed by his slaughter of a giant bear),37 the period in question can only have begun after the Duke’s accession in 943. However, as Duke Richard was then about ten years old, spent the first years of his rule in the custody of the French King, and is actually said by De Torigny to have made the gift only after he ‘was reinstated as Duke in Normandy, which the king of the French had deceitfully taken away from him’,38 it cannot have been much earlier than about 950;39 as the son of Sprota and Asperleng, Raoul cannot have been born before 943–4,40 and as he is likely to have been an adult when the gift was made, a date around 960 is in fact more likely. Albereda’s involvement should perhaps be treated with some scepticism, but not only is it announced by Orderic as unqualified fact, but, if another twelfth-century source is to be believed, she was not, as will be seen below, the only tower-building female of her generation: if it is accepted, the building of the Great Tower can only have taken place after her marriage;41 although we only know for certain that this had happened by 990,42 the survival of her son Jean until 1079 (in so far as she is likely to have been of child-bearing age in the early eleventh century), may be said to suggest a date not long before. The latest date at which the tower could have been built can be approached through identifying those at which Raoul and Albereda died. Raoul witnessed the consecration of the church at Fécamp in 990,43 was present at the deathbed of Count Richard I in 997,44 played a prominent part in the revolt which followed the succession,45 is mentioned in a charter of 1015,46 and

appears as signatory to a charter of Saint-Ouen of as late as 1017,47 although, we can, with Musset, conclude only that ‘sans doute il est mort dans les années 1020’.48 It is clear from a charter that Albereda was dead by 1011.49 On this basis the date range can be narrowed down, if we credit only Raoul’s involvement, to the period c 960–1020. If Albereda’s involvement is accepted, the tower can only have been begun after her marriage – in or before 990 – and completed before her death, in or before the year 1011. In addition to his attribution of the Great Tower to Raoul and (or) Albereda, Orderic also states that it was built ‘after the building of the tower at Pithiviers’ but this cannot, unfortunately, be precisely dated: the twelfthcentury Romans de Garin le Lohérain attributes it to la belle Heloïs, qui tint Peviers et la riche tor fiste,50 but although the attribution is plausible, even likely, we know only that she was in a position to do so in the second part of the tenth century and the early years of the next:51 Ferdinand Lot’s assertion that the tower dated from the years 960–7, independent of Heloïse’s involvement and based on an analysis of military and political circumstances, is at best highly questionable.52 Period Ia: Architectural and Stylistic Dating The scale and layout of the ruins at Ivry are immediately reminiscent of the sophisticated structures of the later eleventh and twelfth centuries, such as the White Tower, Castle Rising, Rochester, Canterbury and Norwich, or the surviving Norman examples at Falaise and Caen, but structurally they are strikingly different: the nature of the rubble masonry, the systematic and careful inclusion of bricks within the arched heads to doorways and windows, and the sparing and curious use of ashlar places the Great Tower firmly in the pré-roman tradition, rather than in the mature Romanesque of c 1050 onwards.53 These elements are of varying diagnostic value. Most prominent but least significant is the herring-bone rubble stonework (Figure 7), as although widely and rightly recognised as a feature of ‘early’ buildings, it remained in use throughout the eleventh century and, although more rarely and more sparingly, in the early part of the next. The decorative use of bricks is more important, for although a feature of important ecclesiastical and secular buildings from the earliest post-Roman period onwards, at high-status sites it occurs rarely, if at all, after the early eleventh century: the Basse-Œuvre at Beauvais, completed by 998,54 the donjon

36

Supra. Benoit de Saint-Maure, ed Fahlin, ii, 524: interpolation into William of Jumièges’ Gesta, ed Van Houts, ii, 174. 38 Cum autem predictus Ricardus ducatum Normannie esset adeptus, quem rex Francorum sibi fraudulenter subripuerat: William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, ii, 174. 39 See Bates 1982, 12–15; William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, ii, 174. 40 It must also have preceded the death of Sprota’s second ‘husband’, Asperleng, but the only author to name him, Robert of Torigni (interpolations to William of Jumièges’ Gesta, ed Van Houts, ii, 174), gives no further information. 41 Van Houts (William of Jumièges, ii, 174, note 7) states that Raoul had two wives, on the basis that a charter of 1011 mentions both an unnamed deceased wife and Albreda (Recueil, ed Fauroux, 86–9, no 13), but this is based on a misreading of the charter. Moreover, the only mention of Eremburga is by Robert of Torigny (interpolation into the Gesta, ed Van Houts, ii, 174), and this he later acknowledged as a mistake, since he ‘later added Albereda’s name in his autograph manuscript’ (ibid). 42 Recueil, ed Fauroux, 88. 43 Douglas 1944, 70. 44 William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, i, 134. 45 Douglas 1944, 70; William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, ii, 8. 37

46

Recueil, ed Fauroux, 100–2, no 18: Richard II makes a grant to SaintQuentin at the request of Dudo and Count Raoul, meum avunculum (101). 47 Recueil, ed. Fauroux, 105–6, no 21. 48 Musset 1991, 90. 49 Recueil, ed Fauroux, 86–9, no 13. 50 Li Romans de Garin le Lohérain, i, 49–50. 51 On Heloïse see Devaux 1887, 70 and Lot 1899. 52 Lot 1899, 277. 53 Jean Mesqui comments on the archaic nature of the entire construction: ‘compte tenu de l’appareil employé, on peut attribuer quelque crédit à la chronique [Orderic], et dater Ivry des années 1000’ (Mesqui 1991–3, i, 199–200). 54 Vergnolle 1994, 74–5 and note 76.

195

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 at Langeais, probably dating from c 1000,55 and the walls put up around St Martin’s abbey at Tours in the 990s being among the latest examples known.56 At least as significant is the quantity and type of the cut stone, not least that there is very little of it: none of the Period Ia door or window openings are framed in true ashlar, and all but three of the nine visible buttresses are of rubble only (Figures 7, 8). As the ashlars are re-used, and were no doubt in short supply, this is understandable, but there is no doubt that masons working in the mature romanesque structural tradition manifested, for example, in the donjon of Loches (recently re-dated to as early as c 1035),57 or the naves of the abbey churches at Bernay (1010–1030) and Jumièges (1040– 1067),58 would typically have cut new blocks and used them more abundantly. Equally striking is the way the few ashlars are used – without any real attempt attempt at coursing, the irregularities being filled out with odd pieces of rubble and Roman tiles, in a fashion best described as ‘experimental’ and strikingly reminiscent both of the ‘aula’ at Doué-la-Fontaine (c 900),59 and, to a lesser extent, of the church of St Pierre at Jumièges (c 940?).60 While none of these features provide an absolute date, they do suggest that the Period Ia Great Tower was completed in or before the first decades of the eleventh century and virtually rule out a date after c 1040–50.

between the regular herringbone Period Ia walling and the later work being quite distinct. The blocking of the southernmost western window also suggests that the infilling of the space between the building and its chemise was at least partly carried out at this stage, although whether the blocking of the other ground-floor openings, removed during the dégagement, was also of a type to suggest this is not clear. Period Ib: Level 2 Much of the surviving pre-Period II work at Level 2 can be attributed to Period Ib, indicating that interventions to the building’s upper parts at this stage may have been as important as the changes to its plan. The bulk of what remains comprises part of the northern part of the ‘spine’ wall, surviving to a maximum height of c 7.50m above original internal ground level (at least as indicated by the threshold of the north door to R1/L1), in addition to the neighbouring section of the north wall, which stands up to 8.30m, but has lost most of its outer facing and has been thickened up on the inside (Period II). Taking the compartments of the building one by one, nothing can be said about the disposition of R1/L2, other than that its floor was carried on the east side by an offset c 4.60m above ground level, and presumably by another on the wall opposite – now reduced to below this level. The Period Ib space (R3/L2) above R3/L1 is defined by the southern part of the same north-south ‘spine’ wall, the external eastern wall, and the remnants of the south wall, but not by the existing wall to the north, which, abutting the spine wall, was either rebuilt or thickened in Period II. The northsouth wall apart, almost all the fabric which would have otherwise defined the Level 2 area to the north, over the apsidal L1/R4, dates from the radical Period II rebuild, leaving the Period Ib layout in this area uncertain. The one interesting feature which does survive is the doorway between between R4/L1 and R1/L2, an opening without rebates, 1.60m wide, 65cm from the north wall. No external doorway of this period survives, but as the formerly external entrance to R3/L1 and R4/L1 and the larger doorway to R1/L1 became internal, and the northern entrance to R1/L1 sealed was by the enmottement, a new entrance or entrances must have been required at this upper level. How internal communication was provided between Levels I and 2 is unknown. The structural evidence for the height and number of the building’s upper floors in Period Ib is little better than for the original structure. For Orderic to have considered it a tower, however, Level 2 must either have been very tall or surmounted by another floor.

PERIOD IB Period Ib: Level 1 The south wall of the Great Tower and the southern part of its eastern wall are not original. This is clear first of all from the fact that R2/L1 is overlooked by two Period Ia windows and is thus unlikely to be have been external when originally built, but the secondary fabric is elsewhere clearly identifiable by its facing in flat-laid rubble, several courses of roundish stones typically alternating with individual tiers of smaller, flatter slabs, with only residual use of herringbone. At three of the points where the main work of this period abuts the original the joint is concealed – its junction with the east wall by the internal re-lining of Period II and by the Period III D-shaped tower, and with the spine wall by the (Period II) infill at the south end of R2/L1 and the late stair tower in the corner of R1/L1. At the south end of the west wall, however, the interface is very clear, the Period Ib work having included the blocking and destruction of an original window, leaving only part of its outer head and southern jamb in place. At the same time a large part of the spine wall facing R1/L1 seems to have been rebuilt or refaced, the junctions

Period Ib: Function

55

See Impey and Lorans 1998, 6–63. See Lelong 1970, 49–50 and figures 2 and 3; Galinié 1987, 279. On the dendrochronological evidence and its implications, see Dormoy 1998. The most important study of the building (Mesqui 1998) endorses Dormoy’s date of c 1035 for its completion (104–9). On the implications of ashlar and other masonry types for dating, see Mesqui 1998, 105, and Vergnolle 1996. 58 Musset 1974, ii, 48 and 61. 59 Boüard 1973–4, esp figures 15 and 17. 60 Musset 1974, ii, 120. 56 57

There is no reason to suppose that there was any radical change between the function of the Period Ia and Ib structures, nor in the use of its internal spaces, beyond the fact that the later building contained one more. Its defensible capacity, however, may have marginally increased, with the blocking of its ground-floor openings 196

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy the structural evidence permits),65 and not only after the postulated heightening c 940: nevertheless, as with the more recently studied Carolingian building at Mayenne (Maine),66 the relationship of this to the tradition under discussion may be fairly remote. It is in fact from written sources that the first representatives of this tradition can be identified, largely on the basis of their description by pre twelfth-century authors as turres, backed up with enough incidental information to show that the word was being used in a relevant sense. In the approximate order in which they occur, these can be listed as follows. The earliest appears to have been that in existence at Château-Thierry (Aisne) by 924,67 followed by others at Laon (Aisne) by 939,68 at Nantes by 943,69 at Amiens (Somme) by 950,70 Coucy (Aisne) by 958,71 Châlons-sur-Marne (Marne) by 962, Chinon, Blois and Chartres by c 976,72 Reims (Marne) by 990,73 Sens (Yonne) and Rouen by 996, and Châteaudun (Eure-et-Loir)74 and Pithiviers by AD 1000. By the early eleventh century ‘Great Towers’ clearly existed at Compiègne,75 Sault (Bas-Berry), and Langeais, where the building largely survives.76 Recent studies of its fragmentary remains and other material have shown that the Great Tower at Avranches (Manche), measured 37.00m by 27.00m, had a four-cell plan, and probably dates from the first decades of the eleventh century.77 The gigantic tower at Loches, largely intact, has been dated, by dendrochronology, to the period 1013–35: 78 analysis by dendrochronology is now also suggesting that the huge and well-preserved Great Tower at Beaugency (Loiret) may date from the same period.79 What is known of these buildings and revealed by those which substantially survive represents an important body of evidence, and offers a firm base for observations and speculation as to the origins, functions and development of the Great Tower. What then can Ivry add to our understanding of the subject? In the first place, in the context of the Great Tower and its use in Normandy, Ivry and Avranches give an indication of at least the scale which could have been attained by the destroyed tower at

and, if contemporary, its partial enmottement. The credentials of the Period Ib structure as a fortress are also unambiguously supplemented by the written sources: Orderic Vitalis describes the building he knew not just as famosa and ingens, but munitissima, by which he can be assumed to have meant ‘strongly armed’ or ‘fortified’. It is also significant that, according to William of Jumièges and Orderic Raoul d’Ivry’s son Hugh deemed the fortress (although not necessarily the Great Tower alone) as a suitably secure base from which to defy the young Duke Robert.61 Period Ib: Dating and Attribution The absence of ashlar in the Period Ib work, the thickness of its walls and the continued use of square buttresses – neither the pilaster strips of the mature romanesque or the true buttresses of the later Middle Ages – suggests that it cannot have followed much after the original. If the work was carried out after demolition or a major collapse, then the interval between the early periods may have been as much as several decades, and could, for example, have been associated with events such as those of 1028-32, when the castle was strengthened by Count Hugh but eventually captured:62 However, if Period Ib is interpreted as a change of plan – perhaps inspired by the architectural and practical advantages of filling in the south-east corner, suggested as work progressed – then the interval need have been no longer than it took to assemble a new team of masons to or re-instruct the old. Given the inherent unlikelihood of a catastrophic collapse and the labour of demolition, this is at least as likely an explanation: if correct, then Orderic’s implication that Albereda finished the tower would suggest that it was her work, and thus that Peroid Ib falls into the same date range identified for the original build. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TURRIS FAMOSA THE NORTHERN FRENCH CONTEXT

65

A personal conclusion reached on the basis of a minute examination by the author of the fabric and De Boüard’s text. Early 2001. 67 Flodoard, ed Lauer, 24. 68 Flodoard, ed Lauer, 122-3. 69 Chronique de Nantes, ed Merlet, 45. The Chronique is usually dated to c 1050, although it has also been attributed to the early twelfth century, and some parts certainly date from the early part of the next (Professor Michael Jones, pers comm). 70 Flodoard, ed Lauer, 127. 71 Renoux 1991, 275; Flodoard, ed Lauer, 24 (Château Thierry), 145 (Coucy) and 155 (Châlons-sur-Marne). The references relate to entries for the years 924, 958 and 963 respectively. 72 The towers at Chartres, Blois and Chinon are known from a passage in the Chronique de Nantes, ed Merlet, 108. See also Lesueur 1963, 225– 9. 73 Richer, ed Latouche, ii, 196 and 198. 74 The tower at Châteaudun is known from a poem incorporated into the Historia Sancti Florentii Salmuriensis, 248. 75 Helgaud de Fleury, Vie de Robert le Pieux, 92. 76 Impey and Lorans 1998, esp 31–5. 77 Impey forthcoming, and Nicolas-Méry forthcoming. 78 Dormoy 1998, passim. 79 Mataouchek 2000, 441.

Ivry is one of the earliest partially surviving buildings which can be confidently classified as a ‘Great Tower’, but is far from being the earliest of the type. The tradition of constructing turriform buildings with residential, defensive and symbolic functions – and clearly ancestral to the more familiar ‘Great Towers’ of the later eleventh and twelfth centuries – was already old by 1000.63 The celebrated structure at Doué-la-Fontaine was identified in the early 1970s as the earliest representative of this tradition, an idea which has since been widely accepted.64 This can only be the case, however, if the structure was a tower as originally built c 900 (as in fact

66

61

William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, ii, 52; Orderic Vitalis, ed Chibnall, iv, 290. 62 William of Jumièges, ed Van Houts, ii, 52 and note 1. 63 On the origins and early history of the ‘Great Tower ‘ see Impey, forthcoming. 64 Boüard 1973–4.

197

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Rouen. In addition, Orderic’s information shows that all three known ‘Great Towers’ in pre-Conquest Normandy were created, just as with the earliest Counties were held, by members of the ruling family. In the early eleventh century this was nothing exceptional, but the fact that – unlike as in other regions – no further great Towers seem have been built by lesser magnates before the twelfth century, suggests that their status in the Duchy remained exceptionally high: if so, this might in turn shed some interesting light on the Conqueror’s motivation, conscious and unconscious, in ordering the building of the White Tower. Ivry’s more general significance to understanding the architectural and functional development of the Great Tower as a type is that it displays the re-assembly of major rooms – plausibly identifiable as hall, chamber and chapel – within a single turriform structure, at least a generation before the building of Loches. Along with Avranches, Ivry therefore shows that this essential pre-requisite for emergence of the mature four-square ‘hall-keep’ of the later eleventh and twelfth centuries long predated the White Tower, assumed by some to be the earliest example.80 In addition, the plan of the Period Ia and Ib building displays perhaps the earliest arrangement of such spaces side-by-side, rather than, again as at Loches, one above the other. Rather than simply being the earliest surviving Norman example of the ‘double-pile’ plan, however, it is tempting to see Ivry as the place where this form was actually arrived. If it is argued, as Paul Drury puts it, that there is a ‘world of difference between … the planning of Period Ia – a long rectangular block, with a chapel extending from one corner and a chamber-block clasped in the angle … and the conceptual leap to integrated spaces of varied shape, size and function into a rectangular donjon, represented by Period Ib’,81 could it then have been at Ivry that, by taking the logical step of filling in the south-east re-entrant of the original structure, this ‘leap’ was made for the first time? If so, we could identify it not simply as the local prototype for Norman builders, but the prototype for the ‘Great Tower’ in its most celebrated and sophisticated form.

to more closely comparable external dimensions (those of the White Tower being 30.00 by 35.50m and those of Ivry 25.00 by 32.00m), the division of both into roughly equal parts by a north-south spine wall, and, crucially, the nearidentical dimensions of the western basement rooms (26.70 x 10.75m: Ivry, south end, and 27.00 x 10.80m, White Tower); the same is true of the rooms above (Ivry c 11.15 x 26.70m; White Tower 11.40 x 27.70m) and the width of the basement spaces of their apsidal cells (White Tower 4.40m, Ivry 4.20m). These features have several important implications. The similarities in scale and plan show that the immediate inspiration for the English buildings was a structure, or type of structure, long extant in pre-Conquest Normandy, and not the originality of their builders, an exotic precedent, or the Roman sub-structure at Colchester.82 Whether the Great Tower at Ivry was itself the model for either or both is another question: other early structures, such as the towers at Bayeux, Rouen, Evreux, Pithiviers or others further afield, may have shared its crucial characteristics, and the model have been either one of these or the general type they represented. Furthermore, if a Norman model had been chosen, the Ducal tower at Rouen, as Allen Brown suggested in 1978, might seem a more likely candidate. Nevertheless, the choice of Ivry would be understandable if, built as much as half a century later, it was more advanced than the others, and certainly some kind of special status even as late as the 1130s is indicated by Orderic’s epithet famosa. In the case of the White Tower, however, the near-identical dimensions of its western rooms to those at Ivry do strongly suggest that the one was very carefully, if selectively, copied from the other: the likelihood of such a link is reinforced – and some suggestion of its mechanism provided – by the number of individuals who were both in a position to influence the design of the White Tower and who had (or at least could have had), first-hand knowledge of Ivry. Among these are, no less, William Fitz-Osbern, Roger d’Ivry, Gundulph of Rochester and the Conqueror himself. Finally, if Ivry is held to be the direct model for the White Tower, Colchester was not, and unless its form really was independently dictated by local conditions, must itself have been loosely modelled on the London building, on Ivry, or another continental building.

THE POST-CONQUEST ENGLISH CONTEXT CONCLUSION Unless it should ever be proved that Ivry’s Period Ib postdates the Conquest, its ruins have two main implications for our understanding of the great tower’s development in Norman England: the first, essentially that the mature, four-square ‘keep’ was not, as has been claimed, developed in post-Conquest England, has been pointed out above. The second arises from its similarity in plan to two of the greatest English examples, the keep at Colchester and the White Tower in London. With regard to Ivry and the first of these, the similarity consists in roughly comparable dimensions and the joint possession of a projecting apse: with regard to Ivry and London, it extends 80 81

An analysis of the surviving fabric of the turris famosa indicates that the original (Period Ia) building consisted, in plan, of two main parts: a western block with internal measurements of 11.40m (across its northern end) by 26.70m, paralleled by another to the east, c 5.00m wide, from which projected a massive buttressed apse. Shortly afterwards – possibly even during construction – the missing south-east corner was infilled, completing the existing rectangular plan (Period Ib). In its Period Ia and Period Ib form, the building had at least one upper floor, and contained storage rooms, probably a chapel, and others which may be identified as a hall and a chamber; possibly

Héliot 1974, 225–6. Paul Drury, pers comm April 1999.

82

198

As has been suggested by Paul Drury (1982, 400 and 1984, 9–13).

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

Count Richard II’s half-brother Raoul, if accepted, dates the ruins to the period c 1010 – c 1020. Of a type and sophistication known elsewhere only from the end of the century, Ivry shows that the mature donjon quadrangulaire was not a post-Conquest innovation, while it is also suggested that it was here, through the creation of a massive four-square compartmented tower in Period Ib, that this form was first arrived at. Crucial similarities in plan and dimensions also suggest that Ivry itself — and not just a type it may represent — was the model for the White Tower in London.

there were two sets of near-identical apartments one above the other, for the use of different social sections of the household. Structural detail dates the Period Ia and Ib ruins to the first half of the eleventh century at the latest, so that there can doubt that they are those of the turris mentioned by Orderic Vitalis in the early twelfth century and described as famosa, ingens et munitissima. If Orderic’s attribution to Albereda, wife of Count Raoul (half-brother of Duke Richard I) is taken literarally, it can be approximately placed within the years c 990-1011; if we accept only that it was built by her husband, to the period c 960 – c 1020. The existence of a building of Ivry’s plan, scale and sophistication at this date, both in its Period Ia and Period Ib form, has important implications for the history of the domestic and military architecture on the continent and in post-Conquest England. Although the donjon at Loches, in particular, demonstrates the scale which residential towers could achieve in the early eleventh century, and what is known from documentary sources suggests it was not unique, Ivry prefigures, in its doublepile, compartmented construction, a type of structure usually considered an innovation of its later years and common only after 1100. Whether at the time of its construction the Period Ia building was an innovation, or an innovation in Normandy, is unknown: a possibility remains, however, that it may have been at Ivry, when, in Period Ib, the two main blocks of the early building were subsumed into a single massive square, that the most sophisticated form of the Great Tower was first arrived at. A very striking feature of the building’s plan – to an extent in its Period Ia form but more markedly in Period Ib, the Great Tower’s similarity in scale, proportion and layout to the White Tower in London, shows that this was not an innovative structure when built, nor based on exotic precedents, nor on a design arrived at by force of circumstances at Colchester. Whether Ivry was itself the model for the White Tower, depends on whether it is simply the known example of a widespread type, or, as Orderic’s description and anecdote suggest, would have remained in some way outstanding in 1066: a direct link is, however, strongly suggested by a series of near-identical internal dimensions, while an abundance of personal, family and official links between the two sites explain why and how this could have come about.

RÉSUMÉ Se fondant sur le travail de terrain effectué en 1995, cet article présente une étude détaillée et une représentation partielle des ruines du château d’Ivry-la-Bataille (Eure). Son objectif est d’établir quelle était la structure initiale de l’édifice et quels furent les premiers remaniements qu’il subit. Il est démontré qu’en ce qui concerne la tour maîtresse — 25 m sur 32 m, incluant une saillie en abside orientée vers l’est sur son angle nord-est — il faut distinguer deux périodes (la Période Ia et la Période Ib) ; cette dernière a marqué l’édifice par le comblement d’un angle rentrant dans le coin sud-est. Il apparaît clairement que les parties de l’édifice construites pendant les Périodes Ia et Ib comprenaient au moins un étage supérieur sinon plusieurs. L’aspect extérieure du bâtiment doit beaucoup à l’architecture militaire romaine. Au XIIe siècle, le coin nord-est de l’édifice fut reconstruit et c’est peut-être à ce moment-là que fut comblé l’espace qui le sépare du mur d’enceinte ou ‘chemise’ (Période II). La construction d’une énorme tour en fer à cheval accolée au mur est, ainsi que d’un escalier intérieur, fait partie d’une série de remaniements plus tardifs (Période III). Rasés à la suite du siège de 1449, il ne subsiste de la tour maîtresse et du château que le rez-de-chaussée. La structure de la tour fournit la preuve qu’elle était antérieure à l’œuvre d’Orderic Vital (composée entre 1109 et 1140), qui y fait clairement référence dans son Historia Ecclesiastica comme la turris famosa, ingens et munitissima. Il en attribue la construction à Albereda, femme de Raoul, demifrère du comte Richard II, ce qui la porterait aux années 990-1011 ; mais si l’on estime plus généralement qu’elle fut élevée au cours de la vie adulte de Raoul, elle daterait alors de la période 960-1020. Etant l’un des premiers édifices en France de cette taille construits selon ce plan, la tour d’Ivry a marqué de manière significative l’histoire de l’architecture militaire, domestique et palatiale — tout particulièrement les origines et l’évolution du ‘donjon quadrangulaire’. On considère habituellement que ces dimensions et ce degré de complexité apparaissent seulement à la fin du XIe siècle. Des ressemblances frappantes existent avec la structure et les dimensions de la Tour Blanche à Londres (construite entre 1070 et 1100) ; cela prouve que cette dernière et le donjon de Colchester, n’étaient ni des nouveautés architecturales, ni la copie de modèles exotiques, ni une réponse à la configuration particulière de leurs sites. Si la tour d’Ivry était unique dans son genre à la fin du XIe siècle, elle a sans doute servi de modèle à la Tour Blanche, et la très forte ressemblance

ABSTRACT A description and partial record is presented of the ruined structure (25.00m by 32.00m) at the north end of the castle at Ivry-la-Bataille, based on fieldwork carried out in 1995. While most of the fabric is original, a secondary build (Period Ib) resulting from a change of plan — or following a brief interval — is also identified: later alterations (c 1200, fourteenth century, fifteenth century) are described in outline only. Stylistic and structural evidence suggests a date before c 1050, implying that the ruins are those of the turris famosa described at Ivry by Orderic Vitalis in the early twelfth century: his attribution of it to the wife of 199

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

des dimensions de certains volumes intérieurs suggère que ce fut le cas ; de même, cette similarité peut s’expliquer par l’abondance des liens personnels, familiaux et officiels entre les deux sites.

dies zustande kommen konnte.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Dieser Artikel präsentiert, basierend auf 1995 ausgeführten Forschungen vor Ort, eine detaillierte Studie sowie ein Teilprotokoll der verfallenen Gebäudestruktur im Herzen der Burg von Ivry-la-Bataille, Eure. Der Schwerpunkt dieser Studie liegt in der Erforschung der ursprünglichen Gebäudeform und seiner frühesten Umbauphasen: Erwiesenermaßen hat der Hauptbau, mit den Maßen 25 auf 32m mit einem nach Osten gerichteten apsidialen Gebäudevorsprung an der Nord-Ost Seite, zwei Bauphasen (Phase Ia, Phase Ib), wobei der spätere Teil aus der Verfüllung eines einspringenden Winkels an seiner südöstlichen Ecke besteht. Der Bau der Phasen Ia und Ib hatte zweifelsohne mindestens ein Obergeschoß, eventuell auch mehrere. Das äußere Erscheinungsbild des Gebäudes greift auf römische Militärarchitektur zurück. Während des 12. Jahrhunderts wurde die Nord-Ost-Ecke des Bergfrieds wiederaufgebaut und wahrscheinlich die Lücke zwischen Bergfried und umgebender Mauer oder chemise aufgefüllt (Phase II). Spätere Umbaumaßnahmen betreffen die Errichtung eines hufeisenförmigen Turmes an der östlichen Mauer (Phase III) sowie eines im Inneren gelegenen Treppentürmchens. Dieses Gebäude fiel zusammen mit dem Rest der Burg nach einer Belagerung im Jahr 1449 in Trümmer. Bautechnische Ergebnisse lassen keinen Zweifel aufkommen, daß der Bergfried eindeutig mit dem turris famosa, ingens et munitissima zu identifizieren ist, der in der Historia Ecclesiastica des Orderic Vitalis (ca. 110940) beschrieben wird und somit davor entstanden sein muß: falls Vitalis Zuschreibung des Baus an Albereda, Gemahlin des Halbbruders Graf Richards II. Raoul, zutreffend ist, kann er in die Zeit zwischen ca. 990 bis 1011 datiert werden, falls der Bau in die Zeit von Raouls Volljärigkeit fällt, in einen zeitlichen Rahmen von ca. 960 bis 1020. Als eines der frühesten Gebäude vergleichbaren Typs in Größe und Anlage in Frankreich, ist er von eminenter Bedeutung für die Geschichte der Militär-, Wohn- und Palastarchitektur — unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ursprünge und der Entwicklung des ‘donjon quadrangulaire’. Der Bau zeigt Ausmaße und einen solchen Entwicklungsstand, die normalerweise als eine Neuerung des späten 11. Jarhunderts angesehen werden. Die verblüffende Ähnlichkeit von Grundriß und Dimensionen des Bergfrieds mit dem White Tower in London (ca.1070-1100) zeigt, daß weder dieser Bau noch der analoge in Colchester innovative Bauwerke sind, noch exotische Vorbilder haben, oder auf die örtlichen Gegebenheiten reagieren. Ob Ivry selbst das direkte Vorbild für den White Tower darstellt, hängt davon ab, ob er der einzige Bau dieser Art im späten 11. Jahrhundert bleibt, eine direkte Verbindung muß jedoch stark angenommen werden aufgrund einiger nahezu identischer Dimensionen im Inneren der Gebäude. Gleichzeitig erklären eine Fülle personaler, familiärer und politischer Verbindungen zwischen beiden Orten, weshalb und wie

Particular thanks are due to Mr Matthew Impey for assistance with the surveying and recording work on which this article is based, carried out under exceptionally difficult conditions, and M Robert Baudet, Président du Club Archéologique d’Ivry, and M Michel Bricaud, Maire of Ivry, without whose authority and generous assistance it could not have been achieved: to M Jacques Charles, historian, and M Claude Perron, Conservateur du Musée Municipal de Pithiviers, who supplied a mass of material on the Tour d’Heloïse; to Jeremy Ashbee, Professor David Bates, Dr John Blair, Jean Paul Corbasson, Dr Philip Dixon, Paul Drury, Dr Roland Harris, Professor Michael Jones, Professor Gwyn Meirion-Jones and Dr Derek Renn for having read the text in draft and for their comments, and to Christopher Kerstjens and Pauline de Ayala for translating the abstract. Finally, I would like to thank the British Academy for the Post-Doctoral Fellowship (1992– 5) and the Research Grant (1995) which made this work possible.

Acknowledgements

Bibliography PRIMARY SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS IN PRINT Acta Sanctorum, ed Bollandus, J et al., Antwerp and Brussels, 1643 – continuing Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesiae Baiocensis, ed Bourienne V, 2 vols, Société de l’Histoire de Normandie, Rouen and Paris, 1902 Benoit de Saint-Maure, Chronique des Ducs de Normandie, ed Fahlin, C, 2 vols, Uppsala, 1951 Cartulaire de l’abbaye de St Père de Chartres, ed Guérard, B, Documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, Paris, 1843 Chronique de Nantes, ed Merlet, R, Collection des textes pour l’enseignement de l’histoire de France, Paris, 1896 Dudo of Saint-Quentin, De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniae Ducum, ed Lair, J, Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, xxiii, Rouen, 1865 Dudo of Saint-Quentin, History of the Normans, trans. with introduction and notes, by Christiansen, E, Woodbridge, 1998 Flodoard, Annales, ed Lauer, Ph, Paris, 1905 Guillaume le Breton, Philippidos, in Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, historiens de PhilippeAuguste, ed Delaborde, H-Fr, 2 vols, Société de l’Histoire de France, Paris, 1882-5, vol ii Helgaud de Fleury, Vie de Robert le Pieux, ed Bautier, RH, Paris, 1965 Historia Sancti Florentii Salmurensis, in Chroniques des Eglises d’Anjou, ed Marchegay, P and Mabille, E, Paris, 1869 200

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

normande au Moyen Âge, 2 vols, Caen Boüard, M de 1973–4. ‘De l’aula au donjon. Les fouilles de la motte de la chapelle à Doué-la-Fontaine (Xe – XI e siècle)’, Archéol méd, iii–iv, 5–110 –– 1979. Le Château de Caen, special no. of Archéol méd, Caen Bouet, P 1985. ‘Les Sources historiographiques de la Normandie romane (XIe – XIIe siècles)’, in Pougheol, X, ed, Les Siècles Romans en BasseNormandie, 18–27 Bournon, F 1884. ‘Etude sur l’ancien château de Blois’, Mém Soc des Sciences et Lettres de Loir-et-Cher, 10, 151–2 Bradbury, J 1998. Philip Augustus, King of France 1180– 1223, London Brodeur, J, Chevet, P, and Mastrolorenzo, J 1998. ‘Construction sur le site du château d’Angers d’après les fouilles récentes’, in Prigent, D, and Tonnerre, N-Y, 101–12 Brown, R A 1974. English Castles, London –– 1965. ‘The architecture’, in Stenton, F M, The Bayeux Tapestry, 76–87 –– 1969. ‘The Norman Conquest and the genesis of English castles’, Château Gaillard, III, 1–14 –– 1978. ‘Architectural history and development to c 1547’, in Charlton, J, The Tower of London: its buildings and institutions, 24–37 Caumont, A de 1835. Cours d’Antiquités monumentales, 5 vols, Caen –– 1853. Abécédaire ou rudiment d’archéologie, architecture civile et militaire, Caen Charlton, J (ed) 1978. The Tower of London: its Buildings and Institutions, London Colvin, H, Brown, R A, and Taylor, H M 1963. History of the King’s Works: 1–2, The Middle Ages, London Davison, B K 1969. ‘Early earthwork castles: a new model’, Château Gaillard, III, 37–47 Decaens, J 1997. ‘Les origines du donjon rectangulaire’, in Baylé, M, and Bouet, P, eds, L’architecture Normande au Moyen Âge, I, 181–95 Devaux, J 1887. Essai sur les premiers seigneurs de Pithiviers, Orleans Dormoy, C 1998. ‘L’expertise dendrochronologique du donjon de Loches (Indre-et-Loire): des données fondamentales pour sa datation’, Archéol méd, xxvii, 73–89 Douglas, D C 1944. ‘The ancestors of William Fitz Osbern’, Eng Hist Rev, lix, 72–4 –– 1946. ‘The earliest Norman Counts’, Eng Hist Rev, lxi, 129–156 –– 1964. William the Conqueror, London Drury, P 1982. ‘Aspects of the origins and development of Colchester Castle’, Archaeol J, 139, 302–419 –– 1984. ‘The Temple of Claudius at Colchester reconsidered’, Britannia, xv, 7–50 Early, Robert 2001. ‘Les origines du château de Mayenne. Apports archéologiques’, in Renoux, A (ed) 2001, 273-87 Flori, J 1997. ‘Châteaux et forteresses aux XIe et XIIe siècles: étude du vocabulaire des historiens des

Lamberti Ardenses Historia comitum Ghisnensium, ed Heller, J, Monumenta Germania Historia, Scriptores, xxiv, 550-642, Hanover, 1879 (reprinted 1964) Li Romans de Garin le Lohérain, ed Paris, A-P, 2 vols, Paris, 1833 Mortet, V and Deschamps, P, Recueil des Textes relatifs à l’Histoire d’Architecture et à la Condition des Architectes en France au Moyen Âge, XI e–XII e siècles, 2 vols, Paris, 1911-29 Orderici Vitalis ecclesiasticae historiae libri tredecim, ed Le Prévost, A, 5 vols, Société de l’Histoire de France, Paris, 1838–55 Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed and trans., Chibnall, M, 6 vols, Oxford Medieval Texts, 1969–80 Recueil des Actes des Ducs de Normandie, ed Fauroux, M, Mém Soc des Antiquaires de Normandie, xxxvi, Caen, 1961 Registrum Visitationum Archiepiscopi Rothomagensis: Journal des Visites pastorales d’Eudes Rigaud, Archevêque de Rouen 1248–69, ed Bonnin, Th, Rouen 1852 [translated as The Register of Archbishop Eudes of Rouen, trans. Brown, S and O’Sullivan, J, New York and London, 1964] Richer, Histoire de France, ed and trans Latouche, R, 2 vols, Paris, 1930–7 Robert of Torigny, The Chronicle of Robert of Torigny, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed Howlett, R, 4 vols, Rolls Series, London, 1884–90, iv, 81–315 Suger, Vie de Louis VI, le Gros, suivie de le Histoire de Roi Louis VII, ed Molinier, A, Paris, 1887 William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed Duchesne, A, Paris, 1619 William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed Marx, J, Rouen and Paris, 1914 William of Jumièges, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigny, ed Van Houts, E, 2 vols, Oxford Medieval Texts, 1992–5 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed Mynors, R A B, Thompson, R H, and Winterbottom, M, vol i, Oxford Medieval Texts, 1998 SECONDARY SOURCES Asche, S 1962. Die Wartburg. Geschichte und Gestalt, Berlin Barral y Altet, X (ed) 1987. Le Paysage monumental autour de l’an Mil, Paris Bates, D 1973. ‘Notes sur l’aristocratie Normande: I. Hugues, Evêque de Bayeux, 1011 env. – 1049; II. Herluin de Conteville et sa famille’, Annales de Normandie, 23e année, 7–38 –– 1982. Normandy before 1066, London Baudet, R 1987. ‘Le château d’Ivry-la-Bataille’, Bull des Amis des Monuments et Sites de l’Eure, xliv, 32–7 Baylé, M, and Bouet, P (eds) 1997. L’architecture 201

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Métais, C 1899. ‘Château de Chartres et Place Billard’, Rév des Archives hist du Diocèse de Chartres, 1– 84 Mollat, M (ed) 1979. Histoire de Rouen, Toulouse Musset, L 1979. ‘Rouen au temps des Francs et sous les ducs’, in Mollat, M, ed, Histoire de Rouen, 31–74 –– 1974. La Normandie Romane, Saint-Wandrille, 2 vols –– 1991. ‘Autour du château d’Ivry’, Annuaire des cinqs Départements de la Normandie, 149e Congrès, 89–93 Nicolas-Méry, D forthcoming. ‘Le donjon médiéval d’Avranches’, Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Avranches Pigeon, E-A 1888. Le Diocèse d’Avranches: sa topographie, ses châteaux, Coutances Prigent, D, and Tonnerre, N-Y (eds) 1998. La construction en Anjou au Moyen Âge (Actes de la table tonde d’Angers des 29 et 30 mars 1996), Angers Regnier, L 1898. ‘Deuxième concours de dessin et de photographie: catalogue des envois et notices sur les monuments et objets représentés’, Bull Soc des Amis des Arts du Dép de l’Eure, xiii, 61 Renn, D 1960. ‘The Anglo-Norman keep, 1066–1138’, J Brit Archaeol Assoc, xxiii, 1–23 –– 1968. Norman Castles in Britain, London Renoux, A 1982. ‘Châteaux normands du Xe siècle dans le De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniae Ducum de Dudon de Saint-Quentin’, in Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire médiévales en l’Honneur du Doyen Michel de Boüard, Mém et doc publiés par la Soc de l’École des Chartes, xxvii, Genève-Paris, 327–46 –– 1987. ‘Châteaux et résidences fortifiées des Ducs de Normandie aux Xe et XI e siècles’, in Actes du 11ème Congrès International d’Archéologie médievale tenu à Caen, le 2, 3 et 4 octobre 1987, 113–24 –– 1991. Fécamp: du Palais Ducal au Palais de Dieu, Paris: CNRS –– 1992. ‘Palais capétiens et normands à la fin du Xe et au début du XI e siècle’, in Parisse, M et Barral I Altet, X (eds), Le Roi de France et son Royaume autour de l’An Mil, Actes du colloque Hugues Capet, Cahors, 179–91 –– (ed) 1994. Palais médiévaux (France-Belgique). 25 Ans d’Archéologie, Le Mans –– (ed) 2001. Qu’est-ce qu’un palais médiéval? Données historiques et archéologiques, Le Mans Stenton, F M 1965. The Bayeux Tapestry, London (rev ed) Swoboda, K M 1969. Römische und Romanische Paläste: Eine architekturgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 3rd ed, Vienna Vergnolle, E 1989. ‘Passages muraux et escaliers: premières expériences dans l’architecture du XIe siècle’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, xxxii, 43–60 –– 1994. L’Art Roman en France, Paris –– 1996. ‘La pierre de taille dans l’architecture religieuse de la première moitié du XIe siècle’, Bull mon, 154, 229–34

ducs de Normandie’, Le Moyen Âge, ciii, 261–73 Galinié, H 1977. ‘La résidence des comtes d’Anjou à Tours’, Archéol méd, 7 (1977), 95–107 –– 1987. ‘Tours, Indre-et-Loire’, in Barral y Altet, X, ed, Le Paysage Monumental autour de l’an Mil, Paris, 279 Gauthiez, B 1992. ‘Hypothèses sur la fortification de Rouen au onzième siècle. Le donjon, la tour de Richard II et l’enceinte de Guillaume’, AngloNorman Studies, xiv, 62–76 Gillingham, J 1978. Richard the Lionheart, London Héliot, P 1955. ‘Sur les résidences princières batis en France du Xe au XIIe siècle’, Le Moyen Âge, 61, 27–61, 291–317 –– 1974. ‘Les origines du donjon résidentiel et les donjonspalais romans de France et d’Angleterre’, Cahiers de Civilisation médiévale, xvii, 217–34 –– 1969. ‘Evolution du donjon dans le nord-ouest de la France et en Angleterre au XIIe siècle’, Bull archéol du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 141–94 Hull, R 1958. Roman Colchester, Soc Antiq Research Report, 20 Impey, E 1995. Le Château de Creully, Cabourg –– forthcoming. The Ancestry of the White Tower –– forthcoming. ‘The donjon at Avranches, Normandy’, Archaeol J –– and Lorans, E 1998. ‘Le Donjon de Langeais (Indre-etLoire) et son Environnement: Étude historique et archéologique’, Bull mon, clvi, 5–65 Jost, B 2002. ‘The castle at Muenzenberg and its relationship to later twelfth-century castles’ [in this volume] Joulain, D 1991. ‘Le château d’Alberede’, Connaissance de l’Eure, lxxix, 4–23 Le Héricher, E 1845. Avranchin monumental et historique, Avranches Lelong, C 1970. ‘L’enceinte du Castrum Sancti Martini (Tours)’, Bull archéol du Comité des Travaux hist et archéol, nouvelle série, t 6, 42–56 Le Maho, J 1996. ‘Autour d’un millenaire: l’œuvre architecturale à Rouen de Richard Ier, Duc de Normandie (d 996)’, Bull des Amis des Monuments rouennais, octobre 1995–septembre 1996, 63–83 Lesueur, F 1963. ‘Thibaud le Tricheur, comte de Blois de Tours et de Chartres au Xe siècle’, Mém Soc sciences et lettres Loir-et-Cher, xxxiii, 225–9 Lot, F 1899. ‘Héloïse de Peviers, sœur de Garin le Lorain’, Romania, xxviii, 273–7 Mallet, J 1991. Angers: Le Château, Paris Mataouchek, V 2000. ‘La Tour César’. Chroniques des fouilles médiévales en France en 2000’, Archéol méd 30–31, 441 Mesqui, J 1991–3. Châteaux et Enceintes de la France médiévale: de la Défense à la Résidence, 2 vols, Paris –– 1997. Châteaux forts et Fortifications en France, Paris –– 1998. ‘La Tour Maîtresse du donjon de Loches’, Bull mon, clvi, 65–121 202

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

Yver, J 1957. ‘Les châteaux forts en Normandie jusqu’au milieu du XIIe siècle’, Bull Soc des Antiquaires de Normandie, liii, 28–115

203

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 The location of Ivry

Figure 2 Sketch plan of site prepared by Robert Baudet and J Tealdi in 1974. The Great Tower and chemise are shown on the basis of relatively well-preserved remains; the outer bailey rampart is partly conjectural. The plan of the Great Tower is shown as left by alterations of the twelfth century (Period II) and later which obscured the original eastern apse (north is at the top)

204

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

Figure 3 The Great Tower: phased plan. As shown the plan is taken c 1.50m above the threshold of the north entrance to RI/L1; features below this level are shown in solid outline, arch and vault details above in dotted line, and other features above plan level in broken line. As shown, the exterior line of the north wall of R4/L1 is conjectural; it may have been further south, giving the wall a thickness similar to that of the others Survey EAI and MAI 1995; drawing EAI 1998

205

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 4 Reconstructed ground plans of the Great Tower in Period Ia and Period Ib. The details of the extreme south end of the Period Ia structure are conjectural EAI

Figure 5 The north end of the ruined Great Tower from the west. The higher ground in the front is banked against the chemise, left in situ when the infill around the base of the tower itself was removed in the 1970s (the relative dates of tower, chemise and infill remain to be confirmed). In the foreground is the outer face of the western wall and one of the Phase Ia windows (as restored in 1997); in the background is the main internal cross-wall, showing the offset that carried a floor over the western room (R1/L1). Behind this are the best-preserved remnants of the building at first-floor level Roland Harris 1998

206

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

Figure 6 Interior view of the Great Tower from the south, looking down into western half of the building (R1/L1). In the centre of the far wall is a Period Ia external doorway, and to the left the rere-arch of a window (as reconstructed in 1997). To the right is the northsouth cross-wall, showing the offset which carried the first floor. Remains of the chemise, including those of the early postern replaced by the Period III gatehouse, can be seen in the background EAI 1998

Figure 7 Partial elevation of the north face of the north wall (bays adjoining the north-west corner). Brick and tile shown in black. Note the traces of a mortar rendering at the base of the wall EAI 1995

207

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 8 Detail of buttresses at north-west corner EAI 1999

Figure 9 Detail of a buttress to the Period Ia apse, exposed in a shaft through the made-up ground banked against its exterior EAI 1995

208

Edward Impey: The Turris Famosa at Ivry-la-Bataille, Normandy

Figure 10 Detail of the Period Ia north doorway to R1/L1 EAI

209

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 11 Plans of Ivry as completed in Period Ib and the White Tower, taken at equivalent (basement) level and reproduced to the same scale

210

Norwich Castle Keep by

Paul Drury with an Appendix by Dominic Marner

approximately medieval ground-level. Edward Boardman designed the present roof, the spinal arcade supporting it, the wooden balcony (about 0.3m below original principal floor-level) and the main display floor (cutting across the original lower storey). The museum opened in 1894. This attempt to reconstruct the internal arrangement of the keep is based primarily on analysis of the surviving fabric, supplemented by architectural and antiquarian records (especially those predating Soane’s final gutting of the building), and comparison with the plan of Castle Rising. It originates in a study undertaken in 1983–4 for Norfolk County Council,13 who were considering how to improve understanding and presentation of the keep.14 It incorporates the main results of small-scale excavation undertaken in 1986 by Brian Ayers, designed to resolve questions raised by the analysis. Subsequently, Heslop drew on the 1980s work, and has demonstrated the sophisticated system of proportionate design used both internally and externally.15 This paper develops earlier thinking, but detailed investigation and recording of the interior during works to the keep being undertaken in 2000 will undoubtedly refine and correct the present conclusions,16 and hopefully lead to a full publication of the building. In a primary construction period of around twenty years (c 1095–1115), four main phases can be identified. In part they merely illustrate the construction sequence, but they also represent stages in the detailed development of the design, some indeed involving the demolition of previously-completed work. The most radical changes came with Phase 3 when, as the shell of the lower storey was completed, the concept for the interior seems to have become more ambitious. A second period of late Romanesque work is represented by the introduction of vaulting over the majority of the lowest floor; this could well be part of the works undertaken in 1173–5. The development of the design is explained on plans at ground-, principal-floor and wall-gallery level (Figure 4–6), and interior elevations of the four walls as existing, with Romanesque features superimposed (Figures 7–10). The most informative historic plans are those of

Norwich Castle keep is renowned for the richness of its Romanesque architectural decoration (Figure 1).1 It stands on the south-west side of the top of a large motte, part of an earthwork castle built by William I soon after the conquest.2 The correlation between mason marks in the keep and those of the cathedral provides the best dating evidence for the construction of the keep, as Whittingham first realised.3 Dominic Marner’s more detailed analysis, infra, suggests that the keep was started once the presbytery piers in the cathedral were completed, with the lower-storey window-splays possibly being as early as c 1098. The keep is likely to have been completed by the mid 1110s.4 This agrees with its ascription by the late fourteenth-century chronicler Henry of Knighton to William Rufus.5 The keep must have been complete by c 1138 to act as the model for Castle Rising (Figure 3), whose planning can be seen as a rationalized version – at baronial rather than royal scale – of the final form of Norwich.6 In 1173, Norwich castle was captured by Hugh Bigod; expenditure of over £70 in 1173–5 is likely to be connected with making good the damage.7 The castle buildings seem to have been sporadically repaired until temp Henry IV.8 Green suggests that the keep began to be used as a gaol by 1345.9 Major repairs took place in 1707–9;10 but by then the original roofs, and most of the internal structure, had already been replaced by both new and adapted structures with lean-to roofs against the perimeter walls. Sir John Soane replaced these by a largely free-standing brick prison structure in 1789–93.11 In 1822–3 the keep became part of a prison – designed by William Wilkins Jnr, who also rebuilt the fore-building – covering the top of the motte.12 The east front of the keep was refaced 1827–9, and the remaining walls in 1834–9, under the direction of Francis Stone until his death in 1835, and subsequently of William Salvin. In 1887 the City of Norwich acquired the prison for conversion to a museum. Soane’s building was removed, and the ground within the keep excavated to 1

County Site Number 30; TG 23155 08500. Colvin et al 1963, 754. Whittingham 1980. 4 Heslop 1994 also argues strongly for a start in the mid 1090s. 5 Chronicon Henrici Knighton (ed. J R Lumby), i, 1889: ‘et aedificia excellentiora construere ataque palacia, prout castra . . . Norwychi’. Knyghton’s source is unknown. 6 Brown 1978, 9–10. 7 Colvin et al 1963, 754. 8 Colvin et al 1963, 755. 9 Green 1980, 358. 10 Kirkpatrick 1847, 4–5. 11 Stroud 1984, pl. 46. 12 Woodward 1847, 18. 2 3

13

Drury 1984. It was based on a photogrammetric internal survey by Plowman Craven and Associates in 1982. 15 Heslop 1994. His reconstructed plans were redrawn, with some amendments, from Drury 1984; some of his suggestions are incorporated and acknowledged here. 16 The 1986 and earlier excavations will be fully published with this further work. This draft has benefited considerably from discussions with colleagues during the early stages of the Norwich Castle Millennium Project. 14

211

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 Dove and Wilkins, here reproduced as Figures 13 and 14.17

vault shows quite clearly that its infilling consisted of flintrubble masonry (Figure 12). In the southern compartment, post-medieval alterations mask all but the string and part of the line of the vault on the south wall. No structural evidence for the northern vault in this compartment is visible, but there is a strong presumption of its former existence in the symmetrical layout both at ground- and principal-floor levels, and in Wilkins’ statement that ‘two oblique walls buttressing the backs of the large external arches’25 had been ‘recently taken down’. A small segmental vault on an east–west axis was sprung between the diverging western abutments of the diagonal vaults in the northern compartment, to support the garderobe wall above. A similar arrangement probably existed on the south. These diagonal vaults were clearly intended from the very beginning, for not only are they integral with the lower walls, the spine-wall foundation became much less substantial west of the point where it rose no higher than principal-floor level, merely supporting the diagonal vaults.26 The vaults facilitated masonry-walled subsidiary compartments at principal-floor level, without bringing walls up through the lower storey. They were so utilized in the Phase 3 layout at the west end of the keep, but on the east were superseded in Phase 2. The diagonal vaults find no English parallels, but apparently similar features on a smaller scale and at a higher level survive in the late twelfth-century keep at Chambois (Orne).27 Superficially, the construction of the Phase 2A walls, the basis for the principal-floor layout as built, seems to be anticipated by the apparent lack of a window in the second bay from the east of the south elevation. However, because of a crack, the crucial area was extensively rebuilt in 1835, obscuring or destroying the evidence.28 There is no firm evidence of any original openings in the east29 and west30 walls at ground-floor level.

THE GROUND FLOOR PERIOD 1: PHASE 1, THE PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION Phase 1 comprised the external walls and spine wall (all of which are bonded together) almost up to principal-floor level. The two compartments are connected through the spine-wall by an opening, with a threshold of ashlar blocks at c 32.26m OD, which should approximate to the original floor-level.18 Before the keep was refaced, the lower storey had external walls of flint rubble – with ashlar dressings and buttresses – and some local ironstone forming alternate voussoirs of the arches above the garderobe chutes.19 This contrasted with Caen limestone ashlar above (Figure 1).20 The distinction remains internally. The foundations were noted in 1839 as being only c 0.5m deep below the plinth, or lowest offset, course.21 Voids near the bases of the window splays in the south wall indicate a tier of longitudinal timber reinforcement. Woodward records the end of a timber, exposed during refacing, in the centre of the west front, just below first-floor level, probably part of another tier.22 Since the keep was built on a motte raised less than twenty years previously, such reinforcement, intended primarily to hold a building together during initial settlement, is not surprising.23 Differential settlement during construction (and indeed ongoing) is now especially visible in the east wall. More dramatically, archaeological excavation suggests failure and rebuilding of the western part of the north wall, before the work reached any great height. This explains the extra buttress masking and strengthening the joint on the north elevation, where symmetry suggests that a window was first intended. Integral with this primary phase are three stairs (north-east, north-west, south-west), the fore-building, and the diagonal barrel-vaults across six of the eight internal angles, the vault crowns being aligned at forty-five degrees to the adjacent walls. The diagonal faces, of ashlar, sprang from short lengths of chamfered string-course. The vaults at the north-east and south-east corners are evidenced only by the string-courses, cut back flush on the north-east, but well-preserved to the south-east,24 together with ashlar blocks marking the intersection of the destroyed vault with the walls (Figure 11). The vaults on the west are better preserved, particularly in the northern compartment where their common string is partly exposed. The north-west corner

PERIOD 1: PHASE 2A: ANTICIPATING THE CHAPEL The first clear change of plan is represented by the walls defining G2 and G3, abutted against the primary masonry and continuing the well-shaft upwards. The lower courses 25

ie, those under the garderobes on the exterior of the building: Wilkins 1795, 152. As the 1986 excavation showed; the east end was not investigated. 27 ‘Aux quatre angles de ce premier étage sont disposées des tompes dont on ne s’explique pas la raison d’être!’ Deschamps 1983, 302. 28 A loop was formed in this position on the exterior during re-facing, but on what evidence, if any, is unknown. 29 King 1786, 399, and Wilkins 1795, 152, 177, assert the existence of a sally port (‘a small narrow-arched passage’) in the east wall, opening under the fore-building stair, as an original feature, and the doorway, with a round-headed arch, is shown on Wilkins’ original east elevation drawing. The blocked internal head of this is shown on drawings by Stone (Norwich Castle Museum 3.22, 5–6), and seems too high to be an original feature; any more than is that in the same position at Rochester (Brown 1969, 32). It was, as King 1786, 399, said, ‘some feet from the ground’. Faulkner 1971, 4, observed one jamb and thought it part of a window, but in 1984 this was inaccessible. 30 King 1786, 401, asserts that the door in the south-west corner of the keep was ‘forced out in later years, through the cavity where was a loop-hole’, but an original window at so low a level is highly unlikely. 26

17

Dove 1788; Wilkins 1795. Revealed in excavation in 1972. The jambs were altered in the thirteenth century but there is no real doubt that the opening is primary. 19 And occasionally elsewhere in the lower storey: Woodward 1847, 13. 20 Wilkins 1795, 178; also a drawing by William Stukeley, 1734, of the west face: Bodl MS Top gen b53, f. 80r. Barnack slabs are used for string-courses. 21 Norfolk Record Office, C/S 5/3. 22 Woodward 1847, 15. 23 Wilcox 1972. 24 That on the east because until c 1890 it was buried in Phase 3 walling. 18

212

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep of the north–south wall abut those of the well enclosure, which must therefore have been begun as a separate entity.31 These walls established the principal-floor layout as it was built as an integral whole in Phase 3. There were no entrances to G2 or G3 from within the lower storey.32 This implies that they were accessible only through trap doors from the floor above, that is, that they were strong rooms or prisons, although the northern one could have been made accessible (or at least have been lit) from the exterior, under the fore-building stair.33 The diagonal vault appears to have been replaced by half barrel-vaults over each space, if not now then in Period 2. Full barrel-vaults would have left traces on the south wall. The spaces were certainly vaulted before Soane’s work of c 1789, but neither Wilkins nor King give details of their form.34

in 1986 confirms its insertion. The wide western bay of this arcade takes account of the Phase 1 diagonal vaults. The next three bays are evenly-spaced, and the last is a little narrower. On the east, the arcade layout bears no relationship to the position of the primary diagonal vault, confirming that it was demolished by this time. The abutments of the vaulting to the centre of the east wall survive sufficiently to show that they rise too steeply to be remains of round groin-, or barrel-, vaults. Even if these scars are dismissed as too small reliably to indicate the overall curvature of the vaults, the springing height is so low that round groin-vaults would involve c 2m of filling even over the crowns.37 There is also no evidence of abutments inserted in the north wall corresponding to that in the east wall. Its re-facing is continuous only near principal-floor level, and photographs taken c 1890 show irregular core work where the vaulting engaged with the wall.38 Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests half barrel-vaults, rising from the arcade to the side walls of the compartment, and intersected by cross-vaults reflecting the spinal arcade. Such an arrangement, whilst exceptional in this position, would have the merit of being compatible with the earlier structure at the west end, and the height of the central window, as well as making maximum use of the limited light. It may perhaps have been inspired by such structures as the triforium gallery of Saint-Etienne at Caen,39 although there, of course, the vaults spring inwards to buttress the nave vault. In G4, the 1986 excavation revealed a robbing pit for a pier athwart the Phase 2 spine-wall, answering the westernmost pier in the northern compartment and similarly related to the diagonal vaults. Another can be reasonably suggested bisecting the remaining section of the Phase 2B spine-wall, again answering that to the north. It seems, in fact, that this layout on the south, determined by the Phase 2A cross-wall, set the rhythm for the northern compartment, where three equal bays on this module were constructed, leaving the otherwise inexplicably narrow bay on the east. Pottery from the robbing pit showed that the southern compartment vaulting was probably destroyed c 1500.40

PERIOD 1: PHASE 2B: THE TIMBER FLOOR In Phase 1, the diagonal vaults imply the intention to use timber-joisted floors elsewhere. The surviving bases of the spine-walls to support them, bisecting the 10m span of both compartments, were not bonded into the primary walls, and that in the south compartment (G4) abuts the Phase 2A work,35 clearly illustrating the constructional sequence. The lowest courses of rectangular piers survive on the north wall foundation, indicating that the wall was arcaded in five bays.36 PERIOD 1: PHASE 4: BLOCKING THE NORTH-WEST STAIR As a consequence of forming a kitchen on the principal floor, the north-west stair was blocked. PERIOD 2: THE INSERTION OF VAULTING In G1, a more substantial arcade was built on the line of the spine-wall. The western pier survives to more than half its original height, abutting the west wall. The foundations of the four free-standing piers are exposed. Excavation in 1974 showed that the second from the east was clearly superimposed on and around the earlier wall foundation. Their ascription to a second period, rather than a stage in the initial construction, seems reasonably clear from the different character of the details and tooling, and the fact that they were built from a level c 0.4m above that of Period 1. The eastern abutment is an impost set, corbelfashion, into the wall. Around the remains of this and the vault springing, the wall has been re-faced, but unpicking

THE PRINCIPAL STOREY In Period 1, Phase 3, the main walls were extended upwards, and in Phase 4 they were completed and the building roofed. This work is described together, except where the plan was changed in Phase 4. No evidence of Period 2 work has yet been recognized at this level.

31

As the 1986 excavation demonstrated. Photographs of c 1890 confirm that the existing cuts through these walls were made by Boardman. 33 The post-medieval opening here could be an enlargement of a Phase 2A one. 34 Wilkins 1795, 153; King 1786, 404. Browne 1785, 8, states that ‘The great Hold [identifiable from Dove’s survey as G2] . . . is a very large stone arch, under the upper gaol; there are also several other strongrooms in this yard.’ 35 Sections of both wall-foundations, and of this junction, were examined in the 1986 excavation. 36 These were revealed by the removal of storage racking in February 2000, too late to include in detail here. 32

37

The clearly Romanesque form of the western pier rules out the possibility of the whole structure being a later medieval insertion with pointed vaults. 38 These photographs are held in Norwich Castle Museum. 39 See, eg, Congrès Archéologique de France 1910, 32. 40 King 1786, 404, stated that ‘ a stone vaulting over a part where the present chapel is’ then survived, and indicates this on his Figure XX as the whole west end as far as the junction of the diagonal arches with the spine wall. The prison chapel, however, occupied only half this area, in the south-west angle, under the primary diagonal vault (see Figure 4).

213

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

The spine-wall carried the inner pitches of the roofs over the two compartments. Valley-gutter level is given by the bottom of a blocked arched opening above the west end of the spine-wall, through which roof water was discharged. Abutment scars show that the present rooflines are fairly close to the original. The ridges were aligned on the top central windows in each compartment, making the outer pitches shorter than the inner ones. This is confirmed by the three blocked rainwater outlets surviving in the south wall, higher than that on the west. The corresponding outlets in the east and north walls have been lost in rebuilding.

Interpretation is problematic because of the rebuilding of the southern 12m of the east wall of the keep, in 1707–15 and 1827–9. The original plan is suggested by analogy with the passage at the west end of the south wall, and by the fragment – seemingly of the east face – of such a passage, surviving under an eighteenth-century arch near

the south end. The positions of the small windows lighting it are preserved on the exterior, and were included in Wilkins’ illustrations.44 The passage was presumably entered from the hall in a similar fashion to the spiral stair opposite. On the south wall of the keep, the scar of a north– south masonry wall, the upward extension of that inserted below, but at high level bonded to the external wall, is clearly visible. The junction is complicated by a doorway – the springing of its arched head is clear – but the cross-wall scar is offset from a pier integral with the Phase 3 main wall. A cross-wall on the line of the pier would have produced an almost symmetrical arrangement of the south walls of the rooms which it separated. The most likely explanation is that the Phase 2A cross-wall was built up from ground level accidentally displaced to the east of the pier, designed to be the jamb of a doorway through the cross-wall. When the two met, the line of the lower wall had to prevail,45 despite the resulting asymmetry of the wall elevations. When wall-gallery level (Phase 4) over the east room was reached, the design of the south wall was reconciled with the new line of the cross-wall. King, perhaps by a mis-transcription of his field notes, showed the keep well at the end of the then extant western stub of the spine-wall, and was followed in this by Wilkins, who wrote after it had been demolished. King states that ‘where appears the remaining projection of the partition-wall, may be seen a part rounded off, and now cased with brick, having the appearance of a round tower; and in the middle of this a deep, circular, cavity of stone work, like the pipe of a well; which has been filled up in the memory of persons now living; here therefore was, in all probability, the original well, in the wall of the castle; ... And it appears that there was also a passage to it from one of the galleries, through the walls; the entrance to which is now bricked up, but still visible’. 46 Excavation c 1888–90 showed the well to lie adjacent to what was in 1786 the opposite stub of the spine wall. The end of this was indeed ‘rounded off’, as Dove’s survey shows (Figure 13), and its relationship with the well (which King did not personally see) shows that it was the core work of the wall to the east of the shaft. The door must therefore have given access to the well-shaft from the east, and both the plan and the depth of the well suggest a windlass chamber adjacent (P4). By the time of Wilkins’ paper,47 and therefore probably by the time of Dove’s survey in 1788 (Figure 13), this structure had been replaced at principal-floor level by much less substantial work. The room into which the well shaft intrudes at first-floor level (P6) has been traditionally identified as the Great Chamber by its fireplace, flanked at gallery-level by two large openings answering windows in the south wall. The stubs of the fireplace lintel survive but the section over

41

44

42

45

THE HALL The highly ornamented doorway41 in the fore-building opened into the hall adjacent to the entry to one of the two spiral stairs retained in the final layout. Above this door, the masonry platform – level with the wall-gallery floor – was probably extended in timber to give access to a lamp niche. The Phase 1 intention had presumably been to create an internal entrance lobby in this corner of the hall, defined by the diagonal vault-edge below. Since there is no sign of a chimney in the north or east walls, the hall must have been heated by an open hearth supported on the spine-wall below.42 The hall fenestration survives intact on the north side; on the east, all but part of the southern opening into the wall gallery is extant. The surviving stub of the west end of the spinewall is c 1.3m thick. It includes the start of a blind arcade on the north side at high level, in line with the east face of the western buttresses of the north and south walls. Whilst the arcade layout must be speculative, division into six bays, as shown, neatly reconciles their rhythm with that of the buttresses. The westernmost bay, at least, could not have been much wider, given the high springing level of its arch. Whilst the arches at the ends of the wall related visually to wall-gallery level, since they stood over vaulted spaces at principal floor level, those in the centre could have extended down to principal-floor level itself, and indeed the central two in the hall combined. As Heslop has pointed out, the proportions of the hall, taking the offset in the north wall as its western limit, are 1:√2 if the likely depth of a blind arcade is taken into account.43 The form of the west wall is considered below. THE ROOMS SOUTH OF THE HALL

For a discussion of its symbolism, see Heslop 1994, 33–7. A chimney in the spine wall is unlikely because the flue would rise in the valley gutter, and have to be carried up to clear the parapets if it was to draw. 43 Heslop 1994, 41.

The southernmost one is proposed for reasons of symmetry. Had the Period 2 vaulting been in place there would have been no problem, confirming its later introduction. 46 King 1786, 404, and Figure XX. 47 Wilkins 1795, Pl. XXIV.

214

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep the opening and the filling up to the soffit of the relieving arch are lost.48 A basin or lavabo discharges through the wall via a gargoyle which terminates, according to Woodward, in a lion’s head, now badly weathered.49 The room at the south-east corner of the building (P5) had a blind arcade of four arches in the south wall, each pierced by a window and originally with a stone bench beneath; the westernmost window was destroyed in 1835, in stitching a major crack. At the south-east corner an arch of two square orders opened into a small apsidal vaulted chamber, its axis at forty-five degrees to the wall, with the remains of benches against the sides. In the primary phase of design, an outer chamber, defined by the diagonal vault below, would have continued this axis north-westwards, but this was abandoned in Phase 2A. The layout is consistent with identification as the chapel, although the carvings on the walls of religious subjects are clearly secondary graffiti.50 From the eastern end of the chancel arch, the remains of another arch spring diagonally. The space between this and the east wall must have been vaulted, as the termination of the wall passage from the hall. The Chapel could thus be entered both from the hall and the ‘Great Chamber’. As Heslop points out,51 the great thickness of the Phase 2A wall between G 2 and G3 is probably due to it carrying both the north wall of the chapel and an arcade forming a narrow aisle within it. The reconstruction places these almost at the extremities of the wall below, and proposes a three-bay arcade, since the bays would then be the same width as that opening into the wall passage. The chapel at Castle Rising has a similarly narrow aisle, but on the south side, set within the thickness of the outer wall of the keep. The south wall of the chapel has a row of blocked joist-holes just below the openings into the wall gallery. The tops of these correspond with the top of the vault above the chancel arch, and indicate a floor at this level, separating the Chapel below from a mezzanine area above it, entered from the wall gallery via the southern opening on the east side, whose cill is low enough to facilitate access. The layout of the remaining openings in the wallgallery can be reconstructed from fragments of the openings or the corresponding windows surviving in the rebuilt structure, except for the northernmost one, which is proposed to answer that on the south. If this arrangement is correct, it seems probable that the mezzanine, lit through the gallery and also by a second tier of windows higher in the east wall (now blocked), extended across both the chapel and the chamber to the north of it. The scar on the south wall suggests that the mezzanine so created was enclosed on the west by a balustrade wall only some 0.8m high, rather than a masonry wall extending to the underside of the roof structure. The disposition of openings into the mezzanine on the east suggests that it might have been divided into

two spaces, WG1 and WG2, the absence of a scar being due to an opening through the partition adjacent to the east wall. The result of a full mezzanine here would be to deprive P3 of light other than via internal windows, most obviously into the wall passage, answering those in the exterior wall. Castle Rising supports this interpretation, the equivalent of P3 being lit only by a borrowed light from the hall,52 because of an upper room (accessed from the wall gallery) extending across both chamber and chapel, as proposed here.53 By analogy with Castle Rising, a doorway between P3 and the chapel has been included, but a functional association with the chapel, at least at Norwich, is far from certain. THE WESTERN SPACES The western spaces are the most problematical. The first and most striking impression is of structural symmetry, echoed in the symmetrical gable fenestration which contrasts with that of the opposite wall. The centre of the west side contains a very small (surviving) vaulted chamber (P10), entered from the east by an arched opening on the line of, and as wide as, the spine-wall. It is flanked by symmetrical suites of intramural latrines, each with seating for eight, and associated lobbies (P14, P9) entered at the extremities of the west wall. Despite alterations in 1835, the original layout is clear, except that each latrine probably had two windows.54 The door to the northern suite survives in mutilated form; that to the south is entirely lost. In the south-west corner was an entrance chamber, with an external door in the west wall. Its rerearch and angle shafts survive, and it appears on the 1727 engraving of the west front (Figure 2).55 Like Colchester,56 Norwich had a rear entrance, reached either by an external stair, or from a palisade around the top of the motte. Wilkins’ first-floor plan shows the chamber defined on the north-east by a diagonal wall, and entered from the passage in the south wall via a door in the south-east corner. The door opening still exists, forced diagonally through the back of an original guard-recess, its western jamb parallel to the now lost diagonal wall which must have been built off the edge of the diagonal vault beneath. Entry must originally have been from P7, for the only other connection

52

The more compressed plan made lighting across the intra-mural passage less practical. 53 Significantly, the relatively thin wall now dividing it from the upper part of the chamber is of late thirteenth- or fourteenth-century date. 54 This cannot now be proven because re-facing involved renewal of the single block outer wall. 55 With a pointed head, but since many of the openings are so shown, this is not significant. King 1786, 401, thought it of ‘these latter ages’, since it then appeared externally as a brick arch (though from his Figure XXVII round-headed), with a modern window below. This broke into ‘the ornaments on the adjoining parts of the wall’. Stone’s drawings confirm this appearance, which probably merely reflects a long sequence of alteration. In re-facing, a small loop was set in the earlier filling. 56 Drury 1982, 318, Figure 9.

48

Faulkner 1971 and Drury 1984 thought the fireplace had a timber-andplaster hood, but its ‘sockets’ are relatively modern. 49 Woodward 1847, 14. 50 Harrod 1857, 152. 51 Heslop 1994, 53 and Fig 16.

215

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600 with the passage is an internal window57 providing the sole light to the entrance chamber when the outer door was closed. Wilkins also shows a diagonal arch across this room,58 the southern abutment of which still exists. This divided the vault into two compartments, whose arrangement has been worked out from the surviving stubs. The structural arrangement at the north-west corner was evidently similar, for the abutment of a similar diagonal arch is evident and a similar vaulting pattern can be deduced in P13. The vaulting appears to have sprung, at the north-east corner of this space, from the back of a recess in the north wall which appears both to have increased headroom and provided a lamp niche. However, extensive nineteenth-century patching means that unpicking would be necessary to clarify the details. Room P13 had an enriched blind arch in its south wall (since both jambs survive, clearly not part of a continuous arcade). Before the changes of Period 4, P13 would been separate from the stair, the latter reached, like that opposite, via an intra-mural passage from P11. A blind arcade (of which one-and-a-half bays survive) ornaments the west wall of P11; its counterpart, P7, was probably similarly treated, since the arch of the doorway leading from it is enriched. Comparable enrichment also characterises the arches of the openings in the western wall gallery above these rooms. It seems likely, therefore, that the Phase 3 intention at the west was to create two symmetrical areas to the north and south of the spine-wall. This leaves but one major problem in its layout: the interpretation of the diagonal walls shown by Wilkins defining a room on the line of the spine wall (P10), of which the small chamber between the latrine blocks formed the western part. These walls had evidently been demolished some time before Soane’s alterations, as had the diagonal arches beneath them;59 they are not shown on the survey of 1788 which formed the basis of Wilkins’ ground plan. They were, however, recorded by King,60 though his text does not make it certain that at that date they survived above floor level.61 Separating the well from the diagonal walls makes Wilkins’ plan credible, the diagonal arches in the lower storey supporting walls at first-floor level, as those in the outer corners did. The result would be a linking chamber, lit by the window in the west wall, between the two symmetrical areas to north and south. At Castle Rising (Figure 3), this is simplified into a long, narrow, intramural chamber accessed only from the Great Chamber. Support for this interpretation comes from the form of the west wall of P11. A mitre in the string-course

above the north end of the north bay of the blind arcade makes clear that the masonry platform formed by the vaulting over the small compartments returned along the line of the south-east wall of the kitchen, spanning over the doorway to the garderobes. Assuming that the blind arcade was of two bays produces a similar relationship to a similar entrance to P10. The final and perhaps most problematic issue is how, or indeed if, P11 and P7 were separated from the spaces to the east. The absence of any masonry wall below makes it absolutely clear that there was none at principal floor level. A timber-framed wall is structurally feasible, but why terminate two important spaces in such a makeshift way, when elsewhere, masonry walls needed to divide the principal floor were brought up through the lower story as structural afterthoughts, only bonded from principal-floor level upwards? The implication is that there was no division, at least no solid wall, at principal-floor level. The tops of the vaults over P8/9 and P13/14 alone could have formed a gallery at wall-passage level, necessary to provide continuous circulation across the north-west and south-west corners. Such access is confirmed by medieval graffiti on the east face of the main west wall, about 1.5m above the floor of this putative gallery. Equally, the space between them could have been floored to provide extensive mezzanine space (WG3, 4), the span of the timbers being broken by a pier rising from the spine-wall below62. This seems the preferable explanation, for otherwise the enriched doorway into the southern wall-passage, and its presumed counterpart on the north, would not have led to anything worthy of the expectations they raise. It also provides an explanation of the evidence for a division of the spaces at wall-gallery level. Scars some 0.35m wide, traceable no higher than the capital of the adjacent opening, extend upwards the line of the offsets marking the beginning of the principal-floor level wall-passages in the north and south walls. The arrangement is better preserved on the south, where a stub of the wall survives63. These abutments become explicable as those of timber balustrade walls. The spaces below the mezzanines, P7 and P11, had no direct natural light, but if they were open to the east, this would not be problematic.64 At Castle Rising (Figure 3), the equivalent of spaces P6 and P7 forms the Great Chamber, simplifying the Norwich plan by omitting the mezzanine. The main wall-gallery plan calls for little further comment, except to note the presence of lamp niches at

57

62

In the post-medieval period, this was first cut down to form a low doorway, and then blocked; parts of the head, much lower than the original doorway, survive on both sides. 58 Wilkins 1795, 153. The antiquity of the diagonal wall shown by Wilkins is confirmed by the surviving abutment of the diagonal arch which was necessitated by it. 59 Wilkins 1795, 153. 60 King 1786, 402, Figure XX (plate xxiv). 61 The small schematic first-floor plan drawn by Kerrich ‘according to the Idea I have form’d of it. 1785’ (BL Add MS 6735, f135) shows the spine-wall complete (presumably a hypothesis, and quite probably derived from King’s work in advance of publication) and these two diagonal walls, but no other internal divisions.

63

64

216

The piers shown allow an essentially radial joist layout, but other arrangements are possible. Contrast the quoin of the offset in the south wall below gallery level, seemingly marking the division between P6 and P7, but of wellfinished ashlar. My interpretation of this area (which differs significantly from Drury 1984) has benefited greatly from discussion with Philip Dixon, although our conclusions differ, most significantly in his proposal that a ‘waiting room’ spanned the western end of the keep at principal floor level (vide Dixon and Marshall in this volume). Whilst atractive in functional terms, it cannot be reconciled with the admittedly fragmentary, but crucial, evidence of the fabric, not least the clearlyestablished form of P8 (see, especially, note 58).

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep intervals, and the probability of a blocked door giving access to the fore-building roof. The windows at the east end of the south passage were altered in 1834–9, to correspond to external openings moved slightly in refacing.

take ‘great strong gates’ along its length, their positions corresponding with the buttresses of the keep. It is possible that the lower one had a meurtrière above, as at Castle Rising, reached from the wall-passage at principal-floor level, although Wilkins recorded only slight traces. Near the head of the stair was a substantial landing, which King suggests marked the site of a drawbridge.70 Wilkins follows this suggestion in his drawings, but in observations made during demolition he ‘found the landing was strongly supported by very strong arched work of apparent antiquity within the original building’.71 Beyond this was the fore-building itself, with large openings in the east and north fronts lighting the ornate doorway into the Hall. The floor was carried on a ribbed vault which, with the cores and inner faces of the north, south, and west walls, still survives. The arrangement of ashlar blocks in the walls shows that the vault was originally intended to be set with its crown about 0.5m lower, and, as Wilkins makes clear,72 there were a ‘few’ steps beyond the upper landing which had to be ascended to enter the fore-building proper. This probably reflects the changes involved between Phases 1 and 3 of Period 1, and suggests not only that in Phase 3, first floor level was raised somewhat above its intended Phase 1 level, but also that the fore-building was an integral part of the design from the outset. The vault and the upper parts of the wall faces within the lower chamber show signs of reddening as a result of fire,73 conceivably as a result of the events of 1173. The vaulted space under the fore-building was, according to Wilkins, open to the east, and the decoration of the vault ribs is consistent with this.74 There was also a large arch under the main landing, the balustrade wall above being carried on an arch. The upper part of the stair was also carried on a barrel vault, that the plans suggest was open to the east, but which Wilkins shows only in section, not elevation. This is one of several inconsistencies in his drawings. The provision of windows in the upper part of the balustrade wall suggests that the sections of the stair between the doors were roofed, although King was certain that they were not;75 for defence the stair should be open.

PHASE 4: THE KITCHEN The final change of plan involved blocking the base of the north-west stair,65 forming a large fireplace above, and truncating the passage in the north wall, signifying the conversion of P13 to a kitchen. The fireplace has three inclined flues passing through the walls, as well as a vertical round flue. This duplication parallels the ‘Great Chamber’ fireplace, both occupying a transitional place between fireplaces only having diagonal flues, and those with vertical ones ending in chimneys.66 Castle Rising (Figure 3) was built with a kitchen in the north-west corner of the keep, separated from a service room to the south by a passage leading to latrines in the thickness of the west wall of the keep. It is easy to see how, as P11 inevitably took on service functions, and perhaps became physically separated from the hall, the result could be rationalised into the layout at Castle Rising. The ends of the wall gallery are unaltered since they were built, so the Phase 4 change in plan happened before work progressed beyond the gallery floor. However, the ornate blind arch, incongruous in a kitchen, and signs of the insertion of the western abutment of the fireplace arch (despite later repair) suggests that the walls had been raised some way above principal-floor level before the change was made.67 Nonetheless, the similarity between the Phase 3 blind arcades in this area at principal-floor level, and that on the diagonal wall above the fireplace at gallery level (now badly decayed), suggests no real hiatus in progress.68 The latter also confirm the high status of the space at mezzanine level, despite it no longer having its own dedicated stair from principal-floor level. THE FORE-BUILDING For the original form of the fore-building, we must rely largely on Dove’s survey of 1788, and Wilkins’ reconstruction drawings based at least in part on it, for the stair was taken down c 1789 and the upper part of the forebuilding entirely reconstructed (without reference to the destroyed stair) under the direction of Wilkins Jnr., c 1825.69 According to King, the stair had two doorways to

THE DESIGN IN ITS CONTEXT THE DEVELOPMENT AND RATIONALE OF THE DESIGN At first sight, the keep as begun in Phase 1 was large but not lavish in its construction: the walls were of flint rubble with ashlar dressings, rather than faced in ashlar. Nonetheless, the novel, indeed experimental, diagonal vaults emphasize the special nature of the building, and the

65

The ashlar lining of the stairwell survives virtually to first floor level, showing clearly that it was indeed constructed, then partly dismantled and infilled. 66 Both flue systems were surveyed by the Norfolk Archaeological Unit in 1998. 67 The stone screen wall claimed by Heslop 1994,47, to divide the kitchen east–west seems to be based on a cut in the west keep wall, filled with exposed core work. However, the core work is set in eighteenthcentury ‘Roman Cement’, and the cut was probably made to bond the wall which it represents into the keep wall. 68 In 1888 the fireplace was found to be ‘entirely filled with flint rubble’, which was only removed with much difficulty. Report by J Brockbank, City Architect; 16 May 1888; NCM files. 69 Woodward 1847, 18.

70

King 1786, 398 and plate xxv. Wilkins 1795, 152, fn X. 72 Wilkins 1795, 152. 73 There is clear evidence of an opening being cut to link the foot of the north east stair with this space, and blocked with nineteenth-century mass lime concrete incorporating rubble derived from eighteenthcentury brickwork. 74 Wilkins 1795, 164. 75 King 1786, 398. 71

217

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

invention of its designer, from the outset. At the west end, walls rising from the diagonal vaults remained a feature of the principal floor, but on the east the diagonal vaults were removed in Phase 2. The original plan evidently called for a small chapel or oratory at the south-east corner of the principal floor, its nave axial with the executed diagonal chancel. In the event the chapel was built larger (and correctly oriented), whilst a diagonal arch terminating the wall-passage vault to the north of the chancel arch helped visually to unite the two elements (Figure 5). At the north-east corner of the keep an almost triangular vestibule was probably intended between the main door and the great hall, similar to that actually built around the south-west door. The Phase 2A modifications, involving the construction of masonry cross-walls from ground level, facilitated a bigger and more conventional chapel. Spinewalls to divide the span of timber floors, represented in the construction sequence by Phase 2B, were probably always envisaged, for joists spanning 10m would be massive. The dating from the mason marks implies a start in the mid 1090s under William Rufus, and completion under Henry I after his accession in 1100. Heslop attributes the degree of external architectural enrichment of the upper levels to a grand design already established under William Rufus, the difference expressing the very different functions of the ground and principal floors.76 That it does so is indisputable. But the possibility that Henry decided to increase the density of external enrichment or use ashlar throughout cannot be entirely discounted, not least because of the sometimes awkward relationship in plan between the window openings and the blind arcading. This is most marked at principal-floor level on the south elevation (Figure 5). The layout of the principal floor is of particular interest for the essential symmetry of the west end, extending (in contrast to the east end) to symmetry in the openings in the walls above gallery-floor level. Moreover, their degree of ornamentation is considerably greater than those of the ‘Great Chamber’ (P6). Interpreting the use of spaces in Norman keeps is highly speculative, and indeed raises the question of whether most were designed to have specific, static, uses. It is nonetheless tempting to see in the richly-ornamented and symmetrical layout of the western compartments an analogy with later royal planning in the provision of separate lodgings for the king and queen. This certainly provides a context for the large mezzanines, as designed in Period 3 identical and each with its own stair. On this view, the King’s lodging could have been the southern one (WG3), with its private entrance and functional link with P6/7, an impression reinforced by the development of the plan in Phase 4. The importance of these upper spaces is emphasized by the richly-decorated doors to the staircase passages, opening from P7 and originally P11, the provision for guards at the entrances to the stairs, giving access to the wall-gallery, which provided private circulation between them, as well as the degree of enrichment of the openings in the west wall above 76

mezzanine level. Distant views of these, particularly on entering the hall, would have signalled this importance from afar. The elegance of a wholly symmetrical arrangement was clearly short-lived, for in Phase 4, P13 was converted to a kitchen and the area P11, under the mezzanine, would naturally lend itself to use as a servery. Kitchens are rarely identifiable in surviving keeps, and it seems probable that cooking was normally undertaken in separate buildings, or even in rooftop turrets77. The ample latrines perhaps give the best clue to the main function of the principal apartments, for ceremony and the entertainment of guests. The forebuilding, providing a grand ascent and entrance to the royal hall, has perhaps more in common functionally with the entrance to the North Hall (aula nova) at Canterbury Cathedral Priory than to purely military works. The great hall into which it led was, as usual, open to the roof, but the treatment of the area beyond, with a view over a balustrade, to the elaborate west-gable fenestration, suggests a sophisticated architectural treatment of space. Indeed, one of the most striking aspects of the internal planning of Norwich castle keep above lower-storey level is the way in which the conventional approach of a sequence of rooms defined by floor, walls, and ceiling or open roof is substantially replaced by more fluid spaces overlooked by mezzanines linked by the intra-mural gallery. This is true not only of the northern (hall) compartment, but the southern one too, with only the chapel and the adjacent chamber being conventionally enclosed. In both, the use of diagonal as well as rectilinear walls must have added to the contemporary impact. Such a display of architectural virtuosity, however, had one disadvantage for most purposes, the lack of privacy. If the spaces were intended primarily as royal living quarters, this would be a serious disadvantage; but far less so if they were seen as a setting primarily for entertainment and display. Moreover, whilst it is difficult enough to reconstruct the internal architectural framework, it is quite impossible to know the contribution of furnishings, and of the lightweight, temporary constructions of timber and cloth with which it may have been dressed for great occasions. The one truly private space was P10, on the symmetrical axis of the west end.78 THE WIDER CONTEXT Norwich Castle keep was begun about the time when the first massive palace-keeps in England, the White Tower in London and the keep at Colchester, were being completed. The general form of Norwich is similar to what we know – or can deduce – of its predecessors, with the principal apartments set over a massive, dimly-lit lower storey, a structural spine-wall dividing the interior into two principal spaces, one of which was taken up largely by a large hall

77

eg, at Orford and Conisborough, which both have ovens in that position: Brown 1988, 11, 15. 78 P13 before its conversion to a kitchen would have been another.

Heslop 1994.

218

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep open to the roof,79 and a continuous wall-gallery above principal-floor level. The external architectural treatment is, however, very different. Norwich lacks projecting towers or turrets, taking the form of a simple, almost square, crenellated block, save for the fore-building to the main entrance. Its architectural richness comes from the articulation and enrichment of its wall planes, with tiers of arcading in the style of the East Anglian school of Romanesque design developing around the end of the eleventh century. This had, of course, been used very sparingly at the White Tower, and could have been similarly used in the lost upper-storey of Colchester, but did little to relieve their essential austerity. Norwich was similarly an expression of power, but its military strength was toned down, both metaphorically and, particularly by its fore-building, literally. The message had changed in balance, if not content. Norwich is a more confident building, a palace as a demonstration of wealth, taste and artistic patronage, a mise en scene for ceremony and state which could both impress and intimidate; but it is still a real fortress. Internally, too, Norwich was innovative to the extent of being essentially experimental in its handling of space; indeed, as the Phase 4 changes suggest, appearance may initially have prevailed over practicality. On the dating suggested here for Norwich, the primary keep at Falaise in Normandy, assigned to Henry I in the 1120s, was probably conceived as Norwich was approaching completion. Externally, Falaise, though articulated by pilaster buttresses, lacks any of the architectural sophistication of Norwich and its visual message seems very blunt indeed; internally, its planning seems essentially conventional. The ‘general resemblance’ seen between the two80 appears, in the light of what is now known of Norwich, to be indeed generic rather than specific, in that both belong, like the Tower of London and Colchester Castle, to the form of rectangular keep which has complex, essentially horizontal, spatial organisation at and above the principal-floor level, articulated around a spine-wall, in contrast to towers with essentially one room on each floor.81 One of the latest examples in England, the keep at Dover, built in the 1180s, makes particular use of small chambers set within very thick walls, an idea perhaps inspired by the vaulted small chambers of Norwich, like P8 and P13, partly within and partly extending beyond the internal wall-faces.82

Appendix: The Masons’ Marks of Norwich Castle Keep by Dominic Marner The late Arthur Whittingham noted that there are several masons’ marks which are common to the castle keep and the cathedral.83 This indicates that at the very earliest stages of construction the same individuals, or teams of masons, worked at both locations, and therefore the keep should date significantly earlier than had been previously suggested.84 Through a comparison of specific masons’ marks, Whittingham placed a first phase of the keep soon after 1101, and a second immediately after the death of Bishop Herbert de Losinga in 1119, in order to finish the building in time for Henry I to spend Christmas there in 1122. This study is a reappraisal of Whittingham’s chronology, which documents with greater precision the location and number of masons’ marks common to the two buildings (Figure 15). Since its primary focus is the Castle, it does not include the masons’ marks in the Cathedral which are not also found in the keep.85 The relationship between the two buildings in terms of which masons, or teams of masons, were working where and when is more complex than Whittingham suggested. First, instead of a single large group of masons moving from one site to the other just after 1101, and then again with the Bishop’s death, the activity consisted of small groups of masons moving more freely between the two structures. Secondly, these small groups worked on various sections of the Cathedral or keep and, for the most part, worked vertically, not horizontally. Because of their practice of moving upwards and not outwards, we can establish several consecutive chronological relationships where this occurs. For example, mason no. I worked on the cathedral presbytery piers and then immediately above on the gallery piers in the east end. It is reasonable to assume that once the lower storey piers were finished he simply moved upwards. Another vertical correspondence in the Cathedral takes place between the clerestory and the first level of the crossing tower: mason no. ii worked in both areas. In the keep mason no. II worked in the south wall lower storey window splays and then again at the south end of the west wall passage. Another vertical relationship occurs with two masons, nos. III and IV, who began work in the south wall lower storey window splays and then moved upwards to the south wall passage. Once some consecutive chronological relationships have been established within each structure, then we can begin to piece together the building process between the two buildings. Next to mason no. i in the presbytery, in fact on

79

Colchester differed slightly in internal arrangement, probably because of the wide span dictated by building over the podium of the Temple of Claudius: Drury 1982, 394. 80 Colvin et al 1963, 38–9. 81 See Mesqui 1991, 116 and Fig 124; and Thompson 1992 for discussion of the origin of the type, which Impey (this vol) argues had developed at Ivry-la-Bataille by the early eleventh century. 82 Colvin et al 1963, 630–2; Coad 1995.

83

Whittingham 1980. Renn 1968, 42; Faulkner 1971; Brown 1978. 85 A full catalogue of the Cathedral’s marks is reserved for a forthcoming study on the activity of masons in England in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. 84

219

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

fermées laisse penser que l’édifice était destiné aux cérémonies publiques plutôt qu’à la vie privée.

the same piers, masons III, IV and V worked. Their marks cannot be found elsewhere in the Cathedral at any level, but can be found in the Castle lower storey. Therefore, it is likely that once they had completed the presbytery piers, they moved on to the keep while their co-worker, no i, stayed in the cathedral, moving up to the gallery level in the east end. In the keep lower storey masons III, IV and V joined mason II and, once the lower storey was finished, three of them moved upwards (V stopped work) to begin the south and west wall-passages respectively. There they were joined by mason i, who by now had finished the presbytery gallery. Masons VI, VII and VIII, who had been working in the presbytery gallery with mason I then moved over to help with the west wall-passage while masons IX and X also moved from the presbytery gallery to the keep where they helped to complete the north-west stair-well. With the completion of the south wall, masons I, II and IV ceased to work in Norwich. Those helping mason II on the west wall of the keep, ie, masons X, XI, XII, and XIII, all moved to the cathedral clerestory cathedral and/or the crossing tower; with masons II and XI working in both areas. It is significant that the mark of mason II can be found in both the lower-storey window-splays of the keep and in the first level of the crossing tower of the Cathedral. If the masons went from the Cathedral to the south wallpassage of the Castle in 1119–20, as Whittingham had suggested, we would not find mason II working side-byside with masons III, IV and V in the lower-storey window-splays. If this interpretation is correct then the keep was started once the presbytery piers in the cathedral were completed; masons II, III, IV and V began the lower-storey window-splays possibly as early as c 1098. Furthermore the keep is most likely to have been completed well before the death of Bishop Losinga, perhaps by the mid 1110s.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Dieser Artikel stellt eine Interpretation des inneren Raumplans des Wohnturms von Burg Norwich vor. Es wird vorgeschlagen, dass vier Konstruktionsphasen, die alle zur Bauentwicklung beigetragen haben, auf die Zeitspanne von c 1095–1115 zurückgehen. Es wird angenommen, dass das Gebäude ein befestigter Palas war, mit den Haupträumen über einem Erdgeschoss, verteilt in zwei großen Sälen, die teilweise bis zum Dach offen standen. Eine Wandgalerie verband die Mezzaninen die von hoher Bedeutung waren, während die wenigen teils offenen Kammern vermuten lassen, dass das Gebäude eher mehr für die Öffentlichkeit als für das Privatleben bestimmt war. Bibliography Brown, R A 1969. Rochester Castle, Kent Brown, R A 1978. Castle Rising, Norfolk Brown, R A 1988. Orford Castle, Suffolk Browne, P 1785. An Account of the Castle of Norwich and its Liberties Coad, J 1995. Dover Castle Colvin, H et al. 1963. The History of the Kings Works, The Middle Ages, ii Chronicon Henrici Knighton, ed J R Lumby, 2 vols, London, Rolls Series, 1889-1895 Deschamps, P 1983. ‘Donjon de Chambois’, Congrès Archéologique de France, III, 293–306 Dove, T 1788. MS survey drawings of the keep in Sir John Soane’s Museum, 73/3/4–5 Drury, P J 1982. ‘Aspects of the origins and development of Colchester Castle’, Archaeol J, 139, 302–409 Drury, P J 1984. Norwich Castle Keep: A preliminary report on the evolution of the fabric and the internal planning of the building (Norwich Museum) Faulkner, P A 1971. Report on Norwich Castle Keep, Norwich Museum. Green, B 1980. Norwich Castle, Archaeol J, 137, 358–9 Harrod, H 1857. Gleanings among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk (Norwich) Heslop, T A 1994. Norwich Castle Keep: Romanesque Architecture and SocialContext (Norwich) King, E 1786. ‘Observations on Ancient Castles’, Archaeologia, 4, 364–413 (Norwich, pages 398– 405) Kirkpatrick, J 1847 Notes concerning Norwich Castle (2nd ed, originally written c 1725) Mesqui, J 1991. Châteaux et Enceintes de la France Médiévale Renn, D F 1960. ‘The Anglo-Norman Keep, 1066–1138’, J British Archaeol Assoc, 3rd ser, 23, 1–23 Stroud, D 1984. Sir John Soane, Architect Thompson, M 1992. ‘A suggested Dual Origin for Keeps’, Fortress, 15, 3–15

ABSTRACT This paper sets out an interpretation of the internal plan of Norwich Castle keep. Four constructional phases, each involving development of the design, are proposed spanning c 1095–1115. The building is seen as a fortified palace, with the principal rooms raised above an undercroft, and contained in two large spaces in part open to the roof. A wall-gallery links mezzanines, evidently of high status, but the few fully-enclosed chambers suggests that the building’s main role was to accommodate public rather than private life. RÉSUMÉ Cet article donne une interprétation du plan intérieur du château fort de Norwich. Quatre phases de construction, impliquant chacune une évolution du plan, sont à distinguer au cours de la période 1095–1115. L’édifice est vu comme un palais fortifié dont les pièces principales sont élevées au-dessus d’un undercroft et contenues dans deux grands espaces en partie sous charpente apparente. Une galerie murale relie les mezzanines, signe d’un statut social supérieur, mais le petit nombre de chambres complètement 220

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep Whittingham, A B 1980. ‘Note on Norwich Castle’, Archaeol J, 137, 359–60 Wilcox, R 1972. ‘Timber Reinforcement in Medieval Castles’, Château Gaillard 5, 193–202 Wilkins, W 1795. ‘An Essay towards a history of the Venta Icenorum of the Romans, and of Norwich Castle’, with remarks on the architecture of the Anglo-Saxons and Normans, Archaeologia, 12, 132–80 Woodward, S 1847. The History and Antiquities of Norwich Castle

221

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 The north elevation of Norwich Castle keep (Wilkins 1795) Reproduced from Archaeologia, xii, xxx

Figure 2 The west elevation of Norwich Castle keep in 1727 (Corbridge 1727)

222

Figure 3 Plans of Castle Rising keep (from Brown 1978) Reproduced by courtesy of English Heritage

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep

223

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 4 Norwich Castle keep: reconstructed ground-floor plan. The Period 2 vaulting piers are shown in outline

224

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep

Figure 5 Norwich Castle keep: reconstructed principal-floor plan

225

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 6 Norwich Castle keep: reconstructed plan at wall-gallery level

226

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep

Figure 7 Norwich Castle Keep: Elevation of interior of east wall, showing Romanesque features in black. The Period 2 vaulting is shown in the lower storey

227

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 8 Norwich Castle keep: Elevation of interior of south wall, showing Romanesque features in black. The Period 1 arrangement of flooring over the lower storey is shown

228

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep

Figure 9 Norwich Castle keep: Elevation of interior of west wall, showing Romanesque features in black. The diagonal vaults are shown in partial section in the north (right hand) compartment; the section in the south compartment is taken further east, showing the general arrangement of flooring the compartments in Period 1

229

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 10 Norwich Castle keep: Elevation of interior of north wall, showing Romanesque features in black. The Period 2 vaulting is shown as it would have met the north wall, abutting the retained diagonal vault in the north-west corner

230

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep

Figure 11 Norwich Castle keep: springing of east abutment of diagonal arch in south-east corner of lower storey, as exposed in 1887 by the removal of part of the phase 2A wall Norfolk Archaeological Unit

Figure 12 Norwich Castle keep: remains of diagonal vault in north-west corner of lower storey, looking west Norfolk Archaeological Unit

231

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 13 Ground-floor plan of Norwich Castle keep by Thomas Dove 1788 Reproduced by courtesy of the Trustees of Sir John Soane’s Museum

Figure 14 Ground and principal floor-plans of Norwich Castle keep by William Wilkins, 1795 Reproduced from Archaeologia, xii, xxx

232

Paul Drury: Norwich Castle Keep

233

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 15 Masons at work in Norwich Castle keep

234

Norwich castle and its analogues by

Philip Dixon and Pamela Marshall

The keep at Norwich castle is among the largest, the most elaborate, and the least known of the great Romanesque donjons of Europe. Though mentioned by almost all writers on castles, until a few years ago the only detailed accounts of the structure came from the antiquarians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This long silence about it is easy to understand, since the successive rebuildings of the keep have stripped the interior, obscuring the original arrangements and making discussion of the original design extremely hazardous. Recent work on the structure is therefore much to be welcomed. A monograph by Sandy Heslop in 1994 analysed the elevations, identifying a module used in the layout, and made estimates of the rationale of the planning. The archaeological basis for this work had been undertaken during the 1980s by Paul Drury and others, and these studies are now for the first time summarized in an important article, which discusses the evidence in the structure for the understanding of the interior (Drury, this volume). The present short paper is the result of an examination of the building during the summer of 1997 by Philip Dixon and Pamela Marshall, during the course of which it seemed clear to the authors that a debate on the accepted interpretation would be useful.1 In the following pages this accepted interpretation is for brevity referred to as the RP [received plan]. The principal problem in understanding Norwich is simply that too little remains of the interior arrangements to allow a certain reconstruction of the medieval form. In these circumstances the result achieved depends largely on the particular assumptions made at the beginning of the discussion. In our own analysis of the building, we have adopted two basic premises for evaluation of these very fragmentary data: that it is preferable not to introduce unique features without strong cause, and that the closer the fit with other seemingly comparable buildings, the better the likelihood of obtaining a proper reconstruction of the original form. We are not particularly concerned with the absolute dating of the building, which is well argued by both Drury and Heslop. A start for the construction during the last decade of the eleventh century, an interruption or redesign after 1100, and completion in the 1110s, or a little after, seems eminently reasonable. Furthermore, we are not particularly concerned with the unravelling of the buried traces of the earliest phases of the building, which have been thoroughly analysed by Drury, with whose main 1

conclusions we concur: we would agree that an important break in construction, associated with a rethinking of the design [which at the very least included revision of the vaulting plans and an abandonment of a planned staircase] took place soon after the work reached the upper parts of the ground storey. Our interest is in understanding the arrangements of the interior of the donjon at the end of the principal building phase, in what is called phase III. A DISCUSSION OF THE BUILDING There are five main areas in which it seems to us that some discussion would be useful. These are the design of the vaults over the lowest storey, the position of the western cross-wall, the location of the well, the significance of the blind arcades at the western end of the building, and the nature of the second storey. THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE VAULTS OVER THE LOWEST STOREY One of the more striking elements in the RP is the position and nature of the vaults over the original basement. These vaults were initially published by Heslop, who suggested a triangular arrangement of eight small vaults closing off each of the corners of the two large rooms into which the interior was divided. He described these as barrel vaults, forming a unique design,2 a point developed by Drury (this volume), who provides a good description of the fragmentary remains.3 The existence of these remarkable arches is quite clear. The impost of the eastern arch of the southern bay survives intact, since it was buried in ashlar soon after its building: it is a very unusual piece, of considerable delicacy, and with a fine keel of ashlar running upwards towards the point at which the ribs diverged. On the opposite (north-western) corner of the keep this element is obscured by later masonry, but the springing point of the triangular vaults still survives above the modern inserted floor, some two metres higher. Both external faces of the vaulting can be seen for a height of nearly three metres, and a battered fragment of the return against the north wall, showing the pronounced angle required by the triangular arrangement. We would not therefore wish to disagree about the initial design of the 2 3

We are most grateful to Brian Ayres of the Norwich unit and his colleagues, and to the staff in the Norwich Museum, in particular Kate Sussums, for their help in providing access to parts of the building normally closed, and for their kindness during our visit; and we are further obliged to Paul Drury for his most useful discussions about the building, and his tolerance in the face of our scepticism.

235

Heslop 1994, 51. The triangular vaults are certain, however odd, and even though the top of the open face towards the room must have been about 750mm below the apex of the vault in the corner. We do not, however, find the parallel with Chambois (l’Orne) particularly close (Drury, this volume). The Chambois triangular vaults occur at the top of the first floor of a late twelfth-century donjon, and are little more than squinch arches, familiar enough in the shaping of octagons or domes, and not the large vaults in the RP of Norwich.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

vaults. However, we are much less certain that this original plan was actually completed, since in every case where information survives it is clear that the vaulting arrangements were modified before the building of the upper parts of the keep.4 What happened at the eastern end of the building is complicated by the clear change of plan as early as Phase II, early in the construction. The fine keel of ashlar in the south-eastern bay was buried in a massive wall running along the axis of the southern room. In the eastern side of the northern room a new impost, considerably more massive than its predecessor, was formed about two metres above the original springing point. We can see no evidence in the eastern walling of this bay that the triangular vault webs were ever constructed here, since the disturbed flintwork of the wall seems to us to suggest a single broad arch springing at right angles from the eastern wall, and running along the axis of the northern room. We would therefore suggest that in both rooms there was a redesign of the vaulting at this end before its completion. The pattern at the western end, however, it is rather different. The triangular vaults of the northern room were certainly completed as far as the upper floor-level, and the same may have been true of those in the southern room, where most of the evidence has now been lost. The change here took place in Phase III, when two rows of piers were constructed down the centre of each of the basements. It should be remembered that Phase III is the period of the construction of the first floor, with whose design these notes are principally concerned. It seems to us a striking coincidence that the vertical ashlars marking the end of the triangular vaults align across the building with the position of the most westerly pair of these piers. The spacing of this end pair differs from the spacing of the rest of the piers, which suggests that this western end bay was itself regarded as different from the others. The intersection of the triangular vaults against the western wall of the northern room was buried during this phase by the construction of a large pier in line with the others on the long axis of the room. Taking all this together, we suggest that when the builders reached the level of the upper floor (after the clear gap in building construction, probably around the beginning of the twelfth century) the triangular vault was supplemented in the northern room by a longitudinal arcade whose eastern end was, as we proposed above, an early modification to the north-eastern triangular vaulting, and by a major support running north and south, from the end of the triangular vaults to the first free-standing pier of each arcade (for this must be the implication of the uneven spacing of piers). A drawing of this new arrangement is given as Figure 1. In this end bay it is likely enough that the opportunity was taken to fill in the space between the new arches and the original triangular vaults with a web of stone. All evidence for this seems now to have been lost, though a tiny fragment of the web of a Phase III barrel-vault survives 4

above the triangular vault and immediately below the level of the upper floor in the north-west bay. Some of the points in the foregoing discussion are similar to the views of Drury and earlier of Heslop. Where we differ from them in particular is in our supposition that these ground-floor modifications are reflected in the layout of the main floorlevel, which was now begun above the new arcades. THE POSITION OF THE CROSS-WALL The proposal that the basement vaulting (at least during the main period of construction, phase III, with which we are concerned) included a row of transverse arches running from north to south across the building must lead us to reconsider the position of the main north–south wall on the first floor. According to the RP published by Heslop and Drury this lay about 17.2m from the eastern inner face of the hall, and some 6.7m east of the face of the arcading beside the latrine block. This position has presumably been chosen since it matches the change in gallery level in the mezzanine above the first floor, but does not correspond with any support now visible in the basement. It is worth considering the implications of placing the first-floor cross-wall directly above the arches of the basement. This wall would stand about 2.3m further west than that of the RP. Where the wall would have joined the side walls to the north and south traces of scarring and rebuilding can be seen for a height of about 3.3m above the level of the first floor, and we take this to indicate the former position of this cross-wall. THE LOCATION OF THE WELL AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIEW Among the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence at the western end of the keep of the triangular rooms which form such a remarkable feature of the RP is the appearance of diagonal walls on either side of the spine wall in a drawing of 1730 (Drury, this volume). We accept the cogency of the arguments for the RP; but we suggest that the evidential value of the drawing is much reduced by its clear inaccuracy, since it shows the well considerably further to the west of its true position. In order to conform to the known position of the well, the eighteenth-century drawing would require to be redrawn as shown in Figure 2. While we would therefore not dismiss the drawing out of hand, we are doubtful that it accurately shows any of the twelfth-century arrangements of the keep. THE BLIND ARCADES AT THE WESTERN END OF THE BUILDING Several fragments of Romanesque blind arcading survive at the western end of the first floor. These lie in the southern room (Drury, room P8), in both of the triangular rooms of the RP (Drury, rooms P7, P11), and in the southern side of the kitchen (P13). These are clearly only a fragment of what was once put into a structure whose exterior is more elaborate than that of any surviving secular building of the period. It cannot easily be argued

We have been considerably helped by discussions of these points with Professor Jacques Heyman, Dr Richard Gem, David Stocker and James White.

236

Philip Dixon and Pamela Marshall : Norwich castle and its analogues

the twelfth century, and together represent a single development of the design, completed no later than the middle 1120s. The interpretation of the plan is shown in Figure 5. We agree with the RP in most of the arrangements at the eastern side of the keep. We differ in introducing a rectangular space at the western end of the hall. This would have been a long chamber, probably vaulted, and certainly decorated with blind arcading, of which part still remains at the northern end. Given the changes to the vaulting below this area, introduced in phase III, the whole of this set of chambers was securely supported, and could well have been vaulted as far as the north-south cross-wall. In its original state (at the beginning of phase III) this long chamber was adjacent to a vaulted chamber at the northern end of the keep: this was presumably intended to have some grandeur, since it too was arcaded. It gave access to the basement, but if it had a purpose beyond that of a vestibule or circulation zone, this is not now known. However, almost immediately (in phase IV), this chamber was converted into a small kitchen. The arcading was left on its southern wall. The long chamber was reached from the western end of the hall, and provided access to two separate suites of garderobes. It was lit by three symmetrically placed windows, and is likely to have been used as a waiting area: it corresponds in location, size and grandeur to a recognized class of these rooms in buildings of high status.5 At its southern end a vaulted chamber matching that now a kitchen was probably an antechamber, perhaps doubling as a lobby to a balcony or private stair at the south-western corner of the keep. From the dais side of the hall a private doorway almost certainly passed from the hall through the spine wall to the main chamber. According to the design shown in Figure 4 this door would have entered a roofed passage between the first- and second-floor cross-walls. This would give the feeling of a cross-passage, and would have passed directly to the staircase doorway which gave access to the second floor. From the antechamber a door would have entered this cross-passage from the west, giving a more public access to the great chamber. A similar distinction of approach is to be found in the case of the chapel at the other end, where a door would have led from the great chamber to the western end of the chapel. A passage from the eastern end of the hall allowed more public access for those permitted to attend the service.6 All this provides a series of rooms whose function is recognizable in court ritual. At the southern end of the proposed cross-passage, a door leads to a well-lit passageway towards the south-western staircase. In the side of the passage is a standing niche for an attendant or guard. The second-floor rooms would have provided a pair of very large and grand chambers. The mural passages

that all the interior walls were heavily decorated, since the still extant walls of the great hall and chamber are relatively plain. The position of the arcades should therefore be in some way significant. The location of the surviving fragments is shown in Figure 3. Those to the south would lie within the inner chamber of the RP, beside a small vaulted area in what is otherwise a room open to the roof: this is an appropriate position. Those in the side of the garderobe block would lie within the pantry, and perhaps in the spine wall-chamber and those to the north would lie within the side of the kitchen. We find all these as locations for display of grand architecture to be problematic, and that therefore the purpose of the rooms needs to be reconsidered. THE NATURE OF THE SECOND STOREY In the RP the second storey is a mezzanine partially made up of a gallery, from which views of the hall, chapel and large chamber could be obtained, and a pair of triangular bridges at the west end of the keep, which would be necessary to provide access around the closed ends of the north and south galleries. These bridges correspond in position (though at a larger scale) to the metal walkways which at present allow circulation at this upper level, and would have been carried on the very similar vaults of the kitchen and the end section of the southern chamber. The implications of the RP is that these bridges allowed a view of the innermost chambers of the keep. We find much of this very odd indeed. It seems to us that the evidence still available allows the reconstruction of an upper chamber or, more likely, two chambers at second floor level. Their southern parts would be carried on the north–south crosswall discussed above. Scars on both of the side walls begin at a height of about three metres above the level of the first floor, and continue to the wall-head. According to the RP these mark the position of the first-floor cross-wall. We, however, take them to be the position of a second-floor cross-wall, which in this position would have been cantilevered or jettied out beyond (to the east of) its supporting first-floor wall, and could very well be constructed of timber. This interpretation immediately removes the problems of diagonal walling and unprivate spaces in the RP, and seems structurally feasible, as is indicated in the sketch (Figure 4). The implications of this for the function of the donjon as a whole are discussed in the next section below. A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERIOR IN PHASE III The triangular vaults serve one function, to allow the vaulting webs to clear the tops of the rear arches of the windows in the end bays. How the rest of the building was intended to be floored remains obscure, and the detail of what accommodation at first-floor level was intended when the keep was begun is not now obvious. The change of plan during phases II, III and IV perhaps followed a gap of a few years at the beginning of

5

6

237

Dixon 1998, 47-56. This long chamber corresponds remarkably well to the long vaulted chamber at Norham, introduced in period 2 (about 1160). Dixon and Marshall 1993, 410-32, though the parallel is not specifically noticed there in this context. A similar social distinction (king to the west of the chapel, public to the eastern side) is to be seen in the layout of the chapel in the White Tower, and is a clear echo of the Carolingian style of king-at-prayer.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

prevent these upper chambers being intimate, but they are not overlooked, and at the chamber end of each mural passage a large niche for an attendant to command the length of each approach. These upper chambers have grand and decorated windows, and seem to us to be in a suitable position for the royal apartments.

8. That in all three, the principal or sole access to the basement was by a staircase to the right of the entrance passage; 9. That the social orientation of the parts of the buildings follows the same direction. The greater simplicity of the Castle Rising programme may be due to the difference in status: its baronial owner, de Albini, may well have considered that a waiting room and antechamber in royal style would be excessive.

THE FAMILY OF NORWICH Our discussion has so far been confined to the keep of Norwich, and our interpretation of the design has been based solely on a view of the surviving fragments of the building. Before we close, however, we wish to draw attention to some remarkable parallels between Norwich and two other contemporary donjons, those at Falaise and at Castle Rising. The overall similarities have long been known, and were illustrated by a published elevation.7 Our interpretation of the plan, particularly the layout of the rooms at the western end of the keep, very considerably reinforces this general comparison. Figure 6 shows Rising (based on a survey by the Ancient Monuments Directorate) and Falaise (adapted from the survey published by Mesqui8). Among the many points of similarity between these and Norwich we would emphasise: 1. The unusual orientation of the hall, in which the socially lower end (marked by entrance and service rooms) is aligned along the long side, and the dais end is placed against the spine wall; 2. That the kitchen is placed in an identical position, the north-west corner; 3. That the chapel is arranged in the opposite corner, and at least in the case of Norwich and Castle Rising it was reached by a dual access from both hall and chamber. At Falaise it is possible that the eastern part of the chamber was screened off to allow this more public entrance to the chapel; 4. That a short passage provides a defensive position over the forebuilding; 5. That the garderobes are assembled in the western side, opening off a chamber (Norwich and Falaise) which seems to have been in a sequence of progress from hall to chamber, and which could be thought of as a waiting room. At Falaise there may have been even closer analogies, since photographs taken before the recent very regrettable rebuilding seem to show the barrel vault of a small chamber comparable to the small vaulted chambers beside the long chamber at Norwich; 6. That at this point in all three donjons a rear entrance gave access to an external staircase or perhaps to a balcony; 7. That beside this entrance was a newel (Norwich and Rising) to the upper part of the keep. In this position at Falaise is an original opening which now provides a high-level access to the later Talbot tower, the tour Philippienne. In its original form this may have been a small closet or even the access to a stair, as the height of the opening suggests; 7 8

Under these circumstances, therefore, we feel sufficiently confident to describe the group as a family, more closely related than any other surviving donjon. Norwich phases III and IV should belong to the first quarter of the twelfth century, the work of Henry I, perhaps altering a design begun under his brother Rufus. Falaise is normally dated to the 1120s, immediately after the completion of Norwich, and must also be a work of Henry’s masons. Castle Rising was probably begun late 1130s, when William de Albini married Henry I’s widow, Alice the Queen dowager. The masons are unknown but the quality of the workmanship and the sources of the design are the strongest possible hints that de Albini took on his late master’s craftsmen as well as his widow. ABSTRACT The great tower at Norwich is one of the largest and most important of the surviving twelfth-century donjons, but is hard to understand thanks to the stripping out and rebuilding of the interior. This paper examines the current understanding of the layout of the interior spaces, and suggests a new interpretation, in which a suite of rooms, including a waiting room and anteroom, provided a route from the great hall to the large and imposing great chamber. A door from the chamber led to a staircase which gave access to a proposed upper floor. The paper ends by pointing out the parallels for this arrangement among other early twelfth-century buildings. RESUMÉ La grande tour de Norwich est l’un des plus grands et des plus importants des donjons du XIIe siècle subsistant, mais elle est difficile à interpréter à cause de la déstruction et de la reconstruction intérieure. Cet article examine l’interprétation courante de l’aménagement des espaces intérieurs et suggère une nouvelle explication, selon laquelle une succession de pièces, comprenant une salle d’attente et une antichambre, constitue un chemin qui mène de la grande salle à la vaste et imposante grande chambre. Une porte de la chambre donnait sur un escalier qui permettait d’accéder à l’étage supérieur, pensons-nous. L’article met enfin l’accent sur les parallèles qui existent entre ces aménagements et d’autres édifices du début du XIIe siècle. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der große Turm von Norwich ist einer der größten und bedeutendsten erhaltenen Donjons des 12. Jahrhunderts, er ist jedoch dank Entkernung und Neuausbau des Inneren

Colvin 1963, 38. Mesqui 1991, 123.

238

Philip Dixon and Pamela Marshall : Norwich castle and its analogues

schwer zu verstehen. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht das momentane Verständnis des Grundrisses der Innenräume und schlägt eine Neuinterpretation vor, bei welcher eine Raumflucht, einschließlich eines Wartesaals und eines Vorzimmers, einen durchgängigen Weg von der großen Halle zu einem großen und imposanten Schlafzimmer ermöglichte. Eine Tür im Schlafzimmer führte zu einem Treppenhaus, welches Zugang zu einem vorgeschlagenen Obergeschoß verschaffte. Der Aufsatz endet mit Hinweisen auf Parallelen dieses Arrangements bei anderen Gebäuden des frühen 12. Jahrhunderts. Bibliography Colvin, H M 1963. A History of the King’s Works, London: HMSO Dixon, P 1998. ‘Design in Castle Building: the controlling of access to the lord’, Château Gaillard Full 18, 47-56. Dixon, P, and Marshall, P 1993. ‘The donjon in the twelfth century: the case of Norham Castle’, Archaeological Journal, 150, 410-32. Heslop, T A, 1994. Norwich Castel Keep, Norwich Mesqui, J 1991. Châteaux et enceintes de la France médiévale, Vol. 1.

239

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 Sketches of vaults

Figure 2 Position of the well

240

Philip Dixon and Pamela Marshall : Norwich castle and its analogues

Figure 3 A reconstruction of the south-west end of the keep, showing the proposed gallery and cross-passage

241

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 4 A reconstruction of the first-floor at Norwich

242

Philip Dixon and Pamela Marshall : Norwich castle and its analogues

Figure 5 Falaise and Castle Rising : first-floor plans

243

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

244

Boothby Pagnell Revisited by

Edward Impey and Roland Harris

INTRODUCTION

Boothby and related sites. No further investigations are planned.

The Manor House at Boothby Pagnell is among the best known small-scale domestic buildings to survive from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in England.1 The study of the building itself, however, although begun as early as c 1850,2 has made little progress since Margaret Wood’s work of the 1930s; the plans she prepared in 1934,3 and her descriptions of 1935 and 1964 remain the best available.4 A primary aim of this article is to present a new survey of the building, undertaken by the authors in 1994–5, and the refinements in its interpretation which this has allowed. An attempt is also made to reconsider the functional interpretation of the Manor House. Boothby has long been cited as the archetypal ‘first-floor hall’, the term applied since the 1960s to an easily distinguishable group of English buildings of the Romanesque and early Gothic periods. But recent documentary and archaeological work in both England5 and Normandy has challenged the model: rather than seeing buildings of the ‘first-floor hall’ type as entire houses, it is now generally agreed that they were ‘chamber-blocks’ accompanied by halls which were functionally, and often structurally, distinct. We believe that the Manor House at Boothby was part of an ensemble of this type. The open surroundings of the building meant that it was possible to test the hypothesis archaeologically: an extensive programme of resistivity survey and a small-scale excavation revealed traces of a substantial medieval structure to the south of the standing building – conceivably a ground-floor hall. Fieldwork and its results are described below, followed by some comments on its implications for the interpretation of

THE SITE Boothby Pagnell lies five miles to the south-east of Grantham, at about 90m above sea level. The modern village consists of some sixty houses, but earthworks in the field to the west of St Andrew’s church,6 a possible moated enclosure to the east,7 together with large areas of ridgeand-furrow to the west of the village,8 suggest a medieval settlement of some importance. The Manor House stands 200m to the south-west of the church, 20m to the west of Boothby Hall, a substantial house of 1824 but incorporating earlier work.9 A sunken lane running north–south to the rear of the house, and a linear depression to the south, almost certainly mark the course of the moat mentioned by John Leland c 1540;10 its remaining course is unknown. The medieval building stands in isolation, save for an extension built against its west side in the seventeenth century; the small annexe shown in the engravings of Turner and Parker of 185111 had disappeared by 1926,12 and another, dating from the early twentieth century, by 1974. A well, lined in highquality rubble masonry and probably medieval, survives in the angle of the main building and its western annexe. The free-standing billiard-room put up between the two buildings, c 1850, was demolished in about 1930 and the site laid to lawn. THE MANOR HOUSE SUMMARY OF LAYOUT AND PHASING (NUMBERS BRACKETS REFER TO ROOMS AS MARKED ON FIGURE 3)

1

2 3

4

5

Turner and Parker 1851, 1, 52 and Figures following ; Fletcher 1897, 373, Figure on p 369 ; Ditchfield and Jones 1910, 18 and Figure opposite; Hamilton-Thompson 1912, 191-2 ; Lloyd 1931, Figures 47, 389, 485, 551, 582, 762 ; Wood 1935, 16, Plate IV and Figure 6 ; Braun 1940, 23, Figures 8 and 15 ; Little 1985, 161, Figure 94; Platt 1990, 65, Figure 78; Albrecht 1995, 25, Figure 27. Turner and Parker 1851, I, 52. Original linen drawing preserved at the National Monuments Record, Swindon, 93/6658. Respectively in Wood 1935, 198–200, and Wood 1964, especially 16– 19, and Figure 6. A revised version of the 1935 article, including plans, was published as a monograph Norman Domestic Architecture by the R Archaeol Inst in 1974. Plans, elevations (west and east) and sections (longitudinal and transverse) were prepared by K Lees of the College of Art and Crafts, Nottingham, in 1955, for submission to an examination board. Copies are held by the National Monuments Record (BB59/10). The drawings are of a high quality and the plans are accurate, although lack detail and any attempt at interpretation. The elevations and sections show stonework and most other detail schematically only. Blair 1993, especially 2–5; Harris 1994, 10–26; Impey 1993a, especially 82–105; Impey 1997, especially 225–38.

IN

The medieval structure is a single two-storeyed block, aligned on an approximate north–south axis, with external dimensions of 17.1m by 7.7m. The maximum external wall-height is c 6.50m. Adjoining the central section of the west side is a later annexe measuring approximately 6.00m 6

These appear to include two building platforms visible from aerial photography: NMR Number SK93SE37. 7 NMR Number SK93SE39. 8 NMR Number SK93SE38. 9 The architect was Lewis Vulliamy (1791–1871); Pevsner and Harris 1964, 461, and Colvin 1995, 1013. The west side of the house visibly incorporates earlier fabric, possibly of the seventeenth century. In Pevsner and Harris 1989, 152–3 the building is referred to as a chamber-block. 10 Leland’s Itinerary, ed Toulmin Smith, I, 25. 11 Turner and Parker 1851, I, plates following p 52. 12 Neither annexe appears in the photograph printed in the Sale Catalogue of that year.

245

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

square, also of two storeys. Construction throughout is of coursed Ancaster limestone with ashlar dressings in the same material, although part of the later annexe has been rebuilt in brick.13 The ground floor of the main structure, with walls of up to 1.20m thick, is divided into sections measuring 10.00m by 5.25m (south) and 5.30m by 3.60m (north) by a stone cross-wall; the southern section (1) is spanned by two bays of quadripartite vaulting, the northern (2) by a barrel vault parallel to the gable. Each has an original eastfacing doorway. The upper floor – accessible by a modern external stair and an original doorway at the south end of the east wall – is split by an original cross-wall. Later partitions, contemporary with the insertion of the ceiling, enclose a small room (4) and a stair (3) at the southern end. The main room has a medieval fireplace on its west wall, served by a projecting stack and cylindrical flue. It is lit by an inserted east-facing window. The northern room, unheated, has an original window and doorway in its east and west walls respectively. Most of the main building belongs to the original build, which the design of the windows and other details place around 1200. This is considered as Period I. The extent and contribution of later phases can be summarized as follows: Period II:

c 1500; insertion of first-floor east window, re-insertion of original east window in south gable. Partitioning of upper floor and insertion of ceiling;

Period III: Period IV:

c 1700 (?); addition of annexe to west; c 1909–26 re-roofing and other interventions.

The Ground Floor The floor level of the southern compartment is up to 0.55m below the external ground level to the east. Walls are faced down to this level at all points, except where interrupted by outcrops of bedrock; the original floor level was probably the same, and areas of the pitched-stone surface (disturbed by the insertion of a pump, its waste drain, a copper, and other interventions, Periods III and IV) may be medieval.14 The original doorway is at the northern end of the east wall; it measures 1.28m between the outer jambs, is spanned by a monolithic shouldered lintel and has a segmental rere-arch with joggled voussoirs. A draw-bar socket, 90mm by 110mm in section, survives on the south side, along with the corresponding slot to the north. The door itself belongs to the early twentieth-century restoration (Period IV). A second entrance has been cut through the south wall at a later date, perhaps in Period III. There were originally three windows, two of which are substantially complete: one is in the southern bay of the east wall, and is framed externally by a monolithic lintel and continuous-chamfered ashlars, with a rubble relieving arch above. The internal surround is rebated for a single shutter, hung on two pintles to the right (south), represented by holes drilled diagonally into the jamb; the deep socket to the right (north) must have housed a timber draw-bar, serving as a latch. The second window, in the wall opposite, had a shutter of the same type and is otherwise identical; the third, in the centre of the south wall, is marked only by its external relieving-arch, which remains in situ above the inserted doorway. The northern portion of the western wall houses another feature, of a similar design to the windows, but which was evidently a niche rather than an opening; it is 0.77m wide, 0.48m high, and is 0.61m deep. The opening is lined with a continuous rebate, but doors were clearly never fitted, as there are no hinges or hinge sockets. The room is roofed by a pair of quadripartite vaults, one of Boothby’s chief glories; diagonal ribs, of finely cut broadchamfered ashlar, spring from scalloped corbels in the corners of the room and the central transverse arch from more elaborate corbels at each side. Separated from the southern room by a 1.20mthick wall is the smaller northern compartment (2), clearly shown by the construction of the external walls to be integral with the Period I fabric. The original doorway, in the east wall, 1.19m wide with a massive shouldered lintel and a segmental rere-arch, survives intact but has been converted to a window by the blocking of its lower half; a second doorway, inserted in Period III, leads into the adjoining annexe to the west. The room is spanned by a plain barrel-vault: a plaster skim conceals its construction and relationship to the walls, but it is almost certainly original, not least as it gives some purpose to the halfheight pilaster buttress on the north wall.

PERIOD I: IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION External Features A lowering of the external ground level shows the building to be founded on an irregular rubble footing 50mm– 100mm wider than the walls, or, as visible inside the main ground-floor compartment, directly on bedrock; there is no architectural plinth. The head of the medieval side-walls is defined by a broad-chamfered limestone cornice, entire except where abutted by the Period III annexe. The east wall is reinforced by a half-height pilaster buttress, capped with a sloped tabling and standing on a chamfered base, in line with the transverse vaulting rib inside. The buttress formerly reinforcing the centre of the north wall was similar, but only the chamfered base and first five courses survive intact, the remainder having been cut back flush with the wall. On the west face is a third buttress of the same form, also in line with the transverse vaulting rib, but partly overlapped by the projecting chimney-breast. The external stair to the main first-floor entrance is a modern rebuild.

14

13

Jonathan Foyle, pers comm.

246

A stone-by-stone record of the floor surface was made by M Dymond in July 1992 (Archaeological works at Boothby Pagnell Manor House, Figure 4).

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

external stonework, the level of the window, the absence of window seats, the timber lintel, and its placing both asymmetrical to the Period I layout and to suit the Period II partitioning, all indicate that it is not in its original position. The third window, in the west wall, was partly dismantled and blocked in Period II. Externally the jambs and mullion survive, but the head is missing; inside, the rere arch, jambs and outline of the window-seats all remain visible, although interrupted by the Period II timber crosswall. The most prominent feature of the main subdivided space (5) is the magnificent fireplace towards the south end of the west wall, perhaps the most remarkable feature of the building. This is served by a stack attached to the west side of the main block (abutted to the north by the Phase III annexe), constructed throughout in finely-jointed ashlar, and which is no less remarkable itself; its design is particularly ingenious, the successive reduction of volume from the massive base to the slender cylinder at the top being handled with great skill (Figure 6). Inside, the hearth is 2.10m wide at the plane of the wall, paved with stone slabs and defined by a raised edge or ‘fender’ projecting 0.80mm into the room. The jambs are flush with the wall, but terminate in elaborate chamfered consoles, carrying a lintel of eleven double-joggled blocks between massive corbels. The lintel is finished with a roll-and-fillet moulding returned around the flanks. Above, the hood is sloped at the sides, but the front face rises vertically for 0.95.m before sloping back towards the wall. An ashlar relieving-arch, visible above the inserted ceiling, carries the stack over the top courses of the hood (Figure 4). Whether the fireplace and stack are original has never been seriously questioned. Nevertheless, the few hints that it may be an addition, or at least an afterthought of the same date, are worth noting. Externally these include the west-facing pilaster buttress (superfluous, given the presence of the stack), the poor coursing of the two features, and the fact that the chamfered plinth to the stack clearly abuts that of the buttress. On the inside, the proximity of the hearth to the west-facing window and the clumsy handling of the masonry between them both point the same way. These indications are, however, contradicted by the fact that the niche on the inside was intended as such, and not initially as a window, and that the design and detailing of the fireplace and stack are entirely consistent with the date of c 1200 attributed to Period I as a whole. The conclusion must be that the fireplace and stack belong to Period I, with the proviso that they might, conceivably, have been added to the scheme during construction or very shortly after completion. In addition to the communicating door, the northern first-floor room (6) has another in its west wall, which, until the addition of the Period III annexe, must either have opened at the head of a stair or into a timber building. The chamfering of the jambs, broader than that found elsewhere, and the absence of an arched head, leave some doubt as to its date; however its construction is quite unlike anything found in the annexe and is likely to be

The First Floor A reduction in wall-thickness gives the two upper-level spaces, in their Period I form, marginally larger floor areas than those below: 11.10m by 6.00m (south) and 4.35m by 6.10m (north). The original entrance is reached by a straight stone stair at right-angles to the east wall, the upper steps being carried over a gap between the east face of the building and the abutment by a segmental bricklined arch. The stair is modern, but if the original was also built in stone, the absence of wall-scars shows that it must also have been almost identical; the construction which can be glimpsed in the Turner and Parker engraving was possibly the original. A timber-built stair in this position, however, could have had a variety of forms. The doorway itself is finely built and detailed, although plainer than the comparable local examples at St Mary’s Hill, Stamford, and the Jew’s House and the Norman House in Lincoln. The external opening, 1.10m wide and measuring 2.30m from the (original) sill to the crown of the arched head, is lined with a broad continuous chamfer. The arch springs on its north side from a moulded impost, continued on the south side as a string-course as far as the corner of the building; it is composed of thirteen ashlar voussoirs, and has a delicate double-chamfered hood-mould, terminating in fine scrolled stops. The timber lintel on the inside probably replaced an original rere-arch with the insertion of a ceiling and second floor in Phase II. The door itself is modern (Period IV). The cross-wall between the two original firstfloor compartments is pierced by a Period I doorway at its west end, 1.14m wide at its base and rising to a maximum of 2.05m in height. On the south-facing side, continuouschamfered jambs and a shouldered head are distorted by spreading. Original windows or their traces survive on the three external walls of the southern space. The bestpreserved is almost exactly central to the south gable. This is composed of two continuous-chamfered lights, spanned by semicircular heads cut out of a monolithic lintel, and split by a chamfered shaft with decorative capital and base. A double-chamfered hood-mould completes the external detail. Inside, the splayed embrasure is spanned by a semicircular arch, and flanked by window seats on a low sill. The rear of the mullion is rebated for shutters; the iron hinge pintles survive intact. Any traces of original glazing will have been obscured by the existing leaded lights, reinstalled in the 1980s, but the channel along the sill of each light and the drain holes through them, presumably to shed water driven against internal shutters, suggest they were originally unglazed. On the east side, the main room is lit by the fourlight window of c 1500 (Period II). Below the sill of this is a recess framed by the lower sill and seats of an original window, above which some quoins of the rere-jambs also remain in place. The remainder of the window, however, also survives where it was carefully re-assembled – presumably as part of the same campaign – towards the east end of the south wall; interruptions to the original 247

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

medieval, if not necessarily original. The room is lit by a complete Period I window in its east wall, identical in form to the other complete example in the south gable. A second window, consisting of a single square-headed light, formerly pierced the north wall, but has been blocked, leaving visible only the chamfered exterior surround and three quoins on the inside. In the south wall, towards the west end, is a small niche.

At the same time, the southern end of the main Period I room was partitioned off by a close-studded timber wall 6.75m from the gable, which required the blocking up of the original west-facing window. The enclosed space was subdivided by a north–south partition into sections measuring 6.75m (west) and 4.20m (east). In order to light the smallest section, adjacent to the main entrance (3), the window replaced by the four-light eastfacing window was re-set in the south wall. At the same time a loft was inserted above, carried by five beams across the main space, the two largest of which have step and run-out stops. The northern room (6) was spanned by three timbers laid north–south. Given that the inserted beams are at tie-beam level, this operation must have been accompanied by a rebuilding of the roof structure, although none of this survives. The contrast in quality between the new four-light window and the comparatively crude construction of the partitions – which bear no traces of panelling – might suggest that they are of different periods. However, as the repositioning of the twelfth-century east window was almost necessarily part of the same operation as the insertion of the new one, and the reinserted window was clearly placed to light one of the new subdivisions, this seems unlikely. In addition, the insertion of the new window may have been intended to enhance the external appearance of the building as much as to improve its interior.

The Loft and Roof The existing loft is clearly an insertion of Period II; in its original state, the first-floor rooms would almost certainly have been open to the rafters. It is divided by an internal gable over the Period I cross-wall, clearly of the same build, the larger space being lit by an original single-light square-headed window, the smaller space to the north by a gable window with original splays and inner jambs (unblocked and restored externally early in this century). The external gables show that the original roof must, as now, have been of two slopes only, but no part of the existing roof-structure is medieval. A roof-crease cut into the flanks of the chimney-stack, however, shows that its pitch was 3 degrees steeper than the existing slope (46 degrees) and its apex therefore as much as 1.00m higher. The depth of 300–400mm between the top of the cornice and the roof-crease suggests that the roof was originally thatched, which would be consistent with the relatively steep pitch. Inside, a timber corbel survives on the south side of the internal gable, 1.87m above floor level, which may mark the height of a collar-purlin, although whether of the original roof or a replacement is not clear.

IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PERIOD III FABRIC

There are no traces of work to the ground floor, but significant alterations were carried out to the levels above. The most prominent feature is the four-light east window to the main upper chamber, inserted in the position of an original window (above). This window has broad chamfered four-centred lights, set within a deeply moulded architrave, and a hood-mould with returned label stops. Design and detailing point to a date c 1500.

The third series of alterations saw the placing of a twostorey annexe against the west side of the building, about 6.00m square on the outside. The construction is of limestone rubble with dressings of the same. Although altered by the virtually complete rebuilding of its north wall (below), the replacement of its roof, and the removal of its upper floor, it remains datable to about 1700 by the proportions and structural woodwork of its south- and west-facing windows. A doorway at the east end of its south wall gives external access to the interior, which communicates with the northern ground-floor compartment of the original building through a doorway inserted for the purpose, and with the upper floor by an original doorway, previously opening on to some other structure (above). The creation of a wide recess in the north wall of the northern ground-floor room to the main building, adjacent to the inserted doorway, may also date from this period. Its exact function is unclear, but it may have been intended as a fireplace, served by a flue inserted in, or built against, the wall above; certainly this would explain why the external stonework here is not original, either because it dates from Period III, or from the blocking and removal of the chimney. One of the Turner and Parker engravings shows a chimney over the south gable, and this may have been contemporary with other Phase III work;16 presumably it served a hearth placed against the north wall

15

16

Dating There is no reason to dispute the date of about 1200 attributed to the Manor House by Margaret Wood and others, and generally accepted.15 The simple round-headed arches to the windows and first-floor doorways might themselves suggest a date c 1180, but this is offset by the slender quality of the hood-moulds and the broad chamfer to the window openings, typical of the following decades. The fireplace is a rare and early example of its type, but both design and detailing also suggest a date c 1200. No timber-work unquestionably belonging to the original build, which might have offered potential for dendrochronology, has been identified. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PERIOD II FABRIC

Wood 1964, 19; Pevsner and Harris 1964, 462.

248

Turner and Parker 1851, I, Figure following p 52.

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

magnetometer methods were used; the former concentrated around the Manor House and the latter in a larger area centred on Boothby Hall (Figure 13). Few significant anomalies were found and the author of the report concluded that ‘no substantial ditch encircling the two houses lies within the area of the magnetic survey, and that no significant masonry remains can be detected between the hall and the manor house’.24

of the room below (6), which would explain and date the blocking of the Period I window at that point. It may also have been at this stage that the loft to the main structure was provided with the east-facing dormer shown in Turner and Parker, complete with five pigeon-holes in its gable (removed by 1926).17 LATER AND MODERN ALTERATIONS No major works are known to have been carried out in the period c 1700–1850; Turner and Parker show the main building, at least externally, much as it was left after Period III. The only identifiable improvement of the later nineteenth century is the plain softwood stair between the first floor and the loft (evidently not a replacement of an earlier structure), which is mentioned in 1909.18 However, the interval between 1908 – when the Royal Archaeological Institute found the cellar windows blocked and an ‘old high-pitched roof’ divided into garrets19 – and 1926, when the Sale Catalogue describes the ‘Old Hall’ as ‘repaired and put in good order . . . some few years ago’,20 saw a major restoration of the building. To this can be attributed most of the existing softwood roof structure, the remodelling of the north gable window and the removal of the chimney above, the replacement of the east-facing dormer with another to the west, the existing external doors, the rebuilding of the external stair ramp, and the partial reconstruction of the western Period III annexe in brick and stone. The demolition of the outbuildings shown attached to the south-east corner of the building in Turner and Parker probably also took place at this time, as did the building of a small single-storey annexe against the south end of the west front, removed between 1955 and 1974.21 A second major repair programme was carried out in 1986, partly financed by English Heritage, which saw repairs to the roof structure, some interior re-pointing, the removal of the west dormer and a complete re-covering, re-using the existing Collyweston-type slates.22 Repairs and conservation were also carried out on the window glass, lead-work and ferramenta.23

The 1995 Survey: Methodology As part of the new investigations in 1994–5, it was again considered important that remote sensing techniques should be used. With the benefit of the ‘hall and chamber’ model, infra, a more appropriate area for the survey was selected (Figure 13). The position of the moat immediately to the west and, apparently, curving eastward only a short distance to the south provided one constraint, while the doorway to the first floor at the southern end of the Manor House suggested, by analogy with other examples, that any detached hall would have been located at right angles to the chamber-block at this end. The area for survey was extended beyond this, however, in case the plan proved to be atypical, and to allow for the discovery of ancillary buildings. The 1995 remote sensing was confined to resistivity survey, and was carried out with a GeoScan RM4 (ie, with twin electrodes at a spacing of 500mm). Readings were taken on a 1.00m grid and the resultant data were processed using the computer program Insite. The visualization of the resistivity survey results (Figure 14) shows the data interpolated to a 250mm resolution. The 1995 Survey: Results The 1995 resistivity survey revealed anomalies also shown in the 1981 survey by the Ancient Monuments Laboratory. The two areas of low resistance to the north-east of the Manor House (A and B on Figure 14) probably represent pipelines. More of the curved area of high resistance southwest of the Manor House was found this time and can be provisionally identified as a stone revetment to the inner edge of the former moat. However, many new anomalies were discovered in 1995. Of these, the curved linear band of high resistance (P) appears to be a continuation of the moat revetment, although it merges with another area of high resistance (F) which probably results from the modern deposit of hardcore over the moat fill. An adjacent area of high resistance (G) forms a rough L shape, and is impossible to interpret at this stage. South of this, a north-south line of high resistance (H) corresponds with a masonry wall glimpsed during drainage works in 1988.25 This wall projects northwards from the north-west corner of the Period III (c 1700) western annexe, and may represent part

THE EXCAVATION AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY The 1981 Survey In 1981 the Ancient Monuments Laboratory carried out geophysical survey of the area around the Manor House, with the intention of locating further buildings and the line of the presumed moat. Both resistivity and fluxgate 17

It fails to appear on the photograph included in the sale catalogue of that year. 18 ‘Proceedings at meetings’, 379. 19 ‘Proceedings at Meetings’, 379. 20 Sale Catalogue, p 9. 21 Information Lady Nethersthorpe. 22 Drew Edwards, Esq. (of the partnership Drew-Edwards Keen, responsible for the work), pers comm. 23 Information Lady Nethersthorpe.

24

25

249

A Bartlett, Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 4230, ‘Boothby Pagnell, Lincs.’, Series/No. 29/81, 02.04.1984. Unpublished watching brief (1988), undertaken by Torven Zeffertt of the Trust for Lincolnshire Archaeology.

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

foundations at least 0.64m deep. The eastern part of this short length of wall had been robbed, providing a convenient sectional view. To the north of this (inside rectangle ‘L’) was a hard-packed chalk surface, a minimum of 500mm thick. This layer (layer 8 on Figure 15) was totally devoid of finds, and may well be natural. To the south of the wall were areas of scattered rubble (F3 and F2 on Figure 15), some angled into the ground, suggesting collapse from the wall or roof. Less comprehensible was a linear cut across the southern end of the trench which contained the small Pit 1.

of the annexe removed when the north wall was rebuilt in the twentieth century. Other anomalies which relate to walls seen during the 1988 drainage works include that abutting the south-west corner of the Manor House (D) and that abutting the south wall (J). Both are known postmedieval extensions that survived until recent times (above). The present drainage system makes use of the well which shows up as anomaly E. More startling than these largely minor anomalies, is that represented by the rectangular area to the east of the Manor House (L), which stands out in contrast to the low (or ‘background’) resistance to the east and south. At 24.5m x 17.00m the area of high resistance is considerably larger than the Manor House and is distinguished by a border of still higher resistance: this is good evidence of a massive building. Internal details of this building may be represented by a central axial area of high resistance (M) and an area of higher resistance on this alignment but near the west end (N). Outside the building, the diagonally aligned area of anomaly (O) may represent collapse of the gable wall of this building. The border of higher resistance – the ‘wall’ – does not exist along the western side of the rectangle nor along the western part of the northern side. It must be suspected that this means that archaeological deposits in this part of the lawn have been removed: certainly, the eastern wall of the Manor House appears to sit higher than it would have done c 1200. Further evidence of recent truncation of levels in this area is show by the fact that the masonry billiard room (demolished in c 1930) appears as the faintest of anomalies only (K). A final anomaly, again of high resistance, appears to link the south-east corner of the Manor House and south-west corner of ‘building L’.

Summary Finds Reports A significant amount of bone was excavated from layers B, C, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11 (Figure 15). Much was too fragmentary to allow species identification, but enough pieces were identifiable to show that cow (42%), domestic fowl (25%), caprine (25%), and pig (8%) were represented.26 One bone was burnt and another showed signs of butchery, or culinary, preparation. In other words, the bone assemblage suggests general table refuse. Nineteen pottery sherds were excavated from layers C, 3, 4, 6, and 11, and range from the Anglo-Saxon period to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century.27 The earliest sherds are of shelly-limestone tempered pottery, tentatively identified as Lincoln Kiln Type, but are certainly products of the Lincoln area of the late ninth to early eleventh century.28 Stamford-ware sherds of probable eleventh- or twelfth-century date, and Stanion-/Lyvedenware sherds of thirteenth- and/or fourteenth-century date were also found, but, as with the Anglo-Saxon sherds, none was associated with the construction or preconstruction layers. Indeed, most of the pottery appears residual, and only one sherd (a horizontal loop handle and rim of post-medieval Midlands Purple ware) was directly associated with any structural feature: as this was one of the areas of collapsed wall, there is clearly little significance with even this association. In short, the trial trench produced similar results to the drainage trenches excavated in 1988, where pottery, though tantalizingly early, was also residual, and thus of no use in dating the construction or collapse or demolition of ‘building L’. Nonetheless, the pottery assemblage provides further evidence of the occupation of the site prior to the building of the surviving Manor House. No further investigations are planned.

EXCAVATION Methodology and Trench Location The results of the resistivity survey were sufficient to justify further investigation, begun with the archaeological excavation of a small trial trench. This initial and limited investigation had two aims. First, to assess the depth of deposits and the density of small finds, and thus to inform the research design and costing of any future larger scale excavations. Secondly, to ascertain the nature of the narrow band of high resistance that bordered the rectangle of ‘building L’. Accordingly, an area of 4.00 by 1.50m was selected to cross the border of the area resistance ‘L’ where it was clearly defined – in the middle of the long south side of the rectangle – and where disturbance to the lawn was relatively unobtrusive. Description

26

This summary is prepared from an assessment of the bone by Nicky Scott. 27 This summary is derived from an assessment of the pottery prepared by Dr Alan Vince. 28 The presence of Lincoln area shelly ware is of interest since the south of Lincolnshire is well within the market area of Stamford ware, which seems to have competed directly with Lincoln for the supply of cooking wares in the late ninth to early eleventh centuries.

After removal of turf and humic topsoil to a depth of c 1.20–2.00m, several significant features were instantly revealed. Where indicated by the resistivity survey there was indeed an area of closely packed stone rubble, which subsequent excavation revealed to be a wall on an approximate east-west axis, some 1.12m wide and with 250

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

an alternative; co-existence of two traditions was recognized and attributed to separate origins,38 but the ground-floor hall was generally seen to have superseded the Upper Hall House after the twelfth century.39 The interpretation of the ‘First-Floor Hall’ or ‘Upper Hall House’ as a complete dwelling was first questioned in 1974,40 but seriously addressed for the first time by John Blair in 1993. Based on a combination of archaeological, documentary and literary evidence, he concluded that ‘the storeyed stone buildings usually called first-floor halls are in fact chamber-blocks which were once accompanied by open halls of the normal kind’;41 chamber-blocks of the Boothby Pagnell type he sees as a refinement of the later twelfth century, but within and developed from a tradition of juxtaposing hall and chamber occurring as early as the late tenth century. The most telling evidence lies in the late twelfth- or early thirteenthcentury complexes at which a ‘ground-floor hall’ and ‘first-floor hall’ existed side by side, some of which have been recognized only since the publication of the article; excavated or partially standing examples in England include Deloraine Court (Lincoln),42 Fountains Abbey (Yorks)43 and Bishop’s Waltham (Hampshire).44 Further confirmation is to be found in Normandy, where five sites at which a ground-floor hall and ‘first-floor hall’ survive side by side have now been identified.45 In addition, it should be noted that although the chamber-blocks at most of the sites mentioned are (or were) free-standing, the placing of similar buildings across the upper end of the hall, typical of the mid-thirteenth century and later, was simply a refinement of the earlier pattern. As such, they and their derivative – the typical late medieval arrangement of hall and cross-wings – provide nearconclusive proof that the ‘hall and chamber-block model’ offers the correct re-interpretation of the early sites.

INTERPRETATION AND SIGNIFICANCE ‘FIRST-FLOOR BLOCK’

HALL’ VERSUS ‘HALL AND CHAMBER-

The Manor House belongs to a distinct structural type. The main characteristics of examples built c 1150–1220 may be identified as (1) a clearly domestic function, apparent from fireplaces or other features which differentiate them, in particular, from chapels; (2) a careful compactness (although there is much variety in scale); (3) the raising of the main accommodation over a basement. Recurrent, but not universal, features include the vaulting of the lower floor (often carried by a spine of piers), the provision of an internal vice in addition to a main external entrance to the first floor, and the division of at least the upper floor into two unequal parts. Examples have been identified in Normandy as well as England.29 English buildings of this form were identified as a distinct category in the mid-nineteenth century by Hudson Turner, who saw them as an alternative to (what he evidently considered to be) the more usual arrangement of ground-floor hall and associated chambers,30 a view followed by later authors such as Hamilton Thompson31 and Lloyd.32 Margaret Wood noted, in her re-assessment of the subject in 1935, that the storeyed type was the most common representative of twelfth-century domestic architecture,33 an assertion underlined by Faulkner in 1958,34 and which Wood repeated more explicitly in 1964;35 Faulkner called the type the ‘Upper Hall House’, and Wood the ‘first-floor hall’ on both occasions. Both authors followed earlier writers in assuming such structures to have been complete houses,36 and in attributing the functions of hall and chamber to the larger and smaller compartments of the upper floors,37 and postulating timber or fabric screens where no traces of more permanent partitions existed. At the same time they recognized another type of ‘Norman’ domestic building, the ground-floor hall or ‘End Hall House’, identifying it as

38

Wood 1935, 172–3. Faulkner 1958, 163. Wood 1935, 172–3, and Lloyd 1931, 354, assumed the ground-floor hall, and especially the aisled hall, to have been typical of pre-Conquest domestic architecture, and the first-floor hall to be a Norman introduction. Wood presumably saw the post-1200 revival of the ground-floor hall as the reassertion of an ancient tradition. 40 Beresford 1974, 105. 41 Blair 1993, 2. 42 Harris 1994, 23–5 and Figure 24. 43 A vast double-aisled hall, adjacent to the two-storeyed guest houses, has recently been located and identified by geophysical survey. The work was carried out by York University Electronics Department in 1992: see Nenk et al 1993, 288: ‘This building measures approximately 20m x 40m and has been identified as the Guest Hall’. A more complete article is forthcoming in Archaeometry. The authors are grateful to Mark Newman and Keith Emerick for information about this discovery. 44 See plan reproduced by Hare 1987, 14–15. 45 See Impey 1993a, 82–105, and 1997, passim. The sites in question are Beaumont-le-Richard (Calvados), Bricquebec (Manche), Creully (Calvados), Douvres-la-Delivrande (Calvados) and Barneville-laBertran (Calvados), although in this case the chamber-block is placed across the upper end of the hall to form a cross-wing; Marcel Dupuis, owner of the site, suggests that the services may have been incorporated in its ground floor, as Blair 1993, 15, suggests may have been the case with some of the ‘earlier integrated houses’. 39

29

Impey, 1993a, 82–105; 1997, passim. Turner and Parker 1851, I, 6: ‘It is certain, however, that some houses were built during this century on a different plan, viz. in the form of a parallelogram, and consisting of an upper storey, between which and the ground floor there was, sometimes, no internal communication’. They cite the examples of Boothby and Christchurch castle. 31 Hamilton Thompson 1912, 192. 32 Lloyd 1931, 173. This view is implicit in the caption to Figure 46. 33 Wood 1935, 174. 34 Faulkner 1958, 151. 35 Wood 1964, 16: ‘the first floor hall is by far the most common type of surviving Norman house’. The implication here and elsewhere in the book is that this type was also the most commonly built, rather than simply the most commonly preserved. 36 Turner and Parker 1851, I, 6; Hamilton Thompson 1912, 192. 37 Hamilton Thompson 1912, 192, wrote ‘The division of the first floor into a larger and smaller apartment corresponds to the division of the ordinary dwelling-house into hall or common room of the house, and bower or withdrawing room and sleeping apartment’. Lloyd’s view is expressed in his caption to an illustration of the Constable’s house at Christchurch (Lloyd 1931, 173, Figure 46: ‘the first floor was the hall, which has two light windows at the sides and ends and probably had an end partitioned off to form a private chamber’. 30

251

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

BOOTHBY AS A ‘HALL AND CHAMBER-BLOCK’ THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

ENSEMBLE;

their location, but the second, taken after the death of Dorothy Paynell in 1596,53 gives more detail. Part of the document is missing, but the domestic quarters listed comprised a kitchen, a larder, a buttery ‘the brewhouse chamber’, the ‘Corne chamber’, the Hay Chamber, the servant womens’ chamber and the Hall, in which were found tables, forms and trestles: by 1596 the house obviously consisted of very much more than the Manor House – not to mention the numerous outbuildings. The mention of a hall, however, is particularly significant. This need have no bearing on our interpretation of the site in the twelfth century, as it could have dated from any period up to 1596, or have been within the Manor House. While the first eventuality is possible, the second is inherently unlikely; even the larger upper room of the manor house, given its site, layout, cramped interior and poor quality woodwork, could not have made a satisfactory hall for an occupant of any pretensions even at that date. The implication is clearly that the manor house, at least in late Tudor times, consisted of a large number of chambers (some of which may have been in the Manor House) and a hall. However, no further documents throw any light on the problem, and for more information we must turn to the results of archaeological fieldwork.

There is no doubt that Boothby conforms in all important respects to the ‘first-floor hall’ or ‘chamber-block’ pattern as outlined above, so that, if the ‘hall and chamber-block model’ is accepted, then so must the probability that the Manor House was once accompanied by a ground-floor hall. But what evidence is there that this was actually the case? Documentary material from the Middle Ages does no more than outline the status and descent of the Manor. In 1086 land and rights in Boothby, to a combined value of 80s, were held jointly by Gilbert of Ghent46 and Guy of Craon.47 Either of the tenants Sighvatr (who held the church) and Athelstan may have been ancestors of the later de Boothby lineage,48 but the first individual thus named, however, occurs in 1114, when Theodoric de Botheby, miles, together with his wife Lezelina, granted two acres of land and a toft towards the rebuilding of the abbey church at Crowland.49 Evidently an individual of some status, Theodoric was probably the head (or at least a member) of the local seigneurial family. Their residence is likely to have been on the site under discussion. For the remainder of the Middle Ages the only source is John Leland, who describes the descent of the manor through the marriage in 1309 of Agnes, daughter of Sir Alexander de Botheby, into the Pagnell family.50 Leland also provides the first mention of the house; following a discourse on the fortunes of the family he noted that ‘though the Painelles were Lords of the Castelle of Newport Painell in Buckinghamshire yet they had a great mynde to lye at Bouthby where they had a praty Stone House within a mote’.51 All this suggests, as does the quality of the standing building, that Boothby enjoyed considerable status in its early years and retained it even when no longer the caput of its owners. Leland’s description suggests he may have visited Boothby; certainly he came very close. But although his mention of a moated enclosure is of great interest, his reference to the ‘praty house’ is of little use for present purposes. Further information dates only from towards the end of the century, in the form of two sixteenth-century inventories post mortem. The earliest (undated), of William Paynell,52 lists the contents of the house but fails to give

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: THE BURIED STRUCTURE AND ITS INTERPRETATION The geophysical survey and trial excavation carried out in 1995 have been described above. Their implications, however, remain to be explored. Resistivity survey revealed an area of anomaly due east of the Manor House, quite distinct from its surroundings and roughly rectangular in shape. Within the area were further anomalies suggesting partitions or internal features. The general form of the anomalous area and details (such as the linear areas of very high resistance forming the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the rectangle) suggested that it represented a building, probably with walls or sleeper walls of stone, measuring about 24.50 by 17.00m: excavation across the line of the southern external ‘wall’ did indeed reveal the remains of a stone wall, represented by well-constructed footings 1.12m wide. The depth of the foundation trench, together with the width and construction of the wall suggests that it carried a substantial stone wall rather than simply the sill for a timber structure. Dating evidence was poor, but the fabric is wholly consistent with a medieval date. Without knowing more of its form and date, identifying the structure is problematic; it may, in particular, have been an agricultural rather than a domestic building. But various features point otherwise. In the first place is its location, unlikely to have been chosen for an outbuilding at any time before the Manor House went out of high-status domestic use. Secondly, the bone assemblage from the trial excavation suggests general table

46

Lincolnshire Domesday, ed Foster and Longley, 113 (no 81) and 185 (no 55) ; cf. Pevsner and Harris 1964, 24, 81. Pevsner and Harris 1964, 55, 57. 48 Bull 1927–33, 299, claims that ‘the Boothbys were a very ancient family tracing their descent from Saxon times, having been settled in Lincolnshire about 300 years before the Norman invasion’, citing ‘Notes of Botheby Family, kindly lent by R T Boothby Esq’. The present authors can find no evidence to support this, but continue in the attempt to track down the ‘notes’. 49 ‘Theodoricus de Botheby, miles, et iuxta illum Lezelina uxor eius, donantes operi ecclesiae Sancti Guthlaci unum Toftum et duas acras terrae’. Historia Ingulphi [continuation by pseudo-Peter of Blois] = [Fulman and Gale], Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores Veterum, Oxford 1684, vol I, 119. Alan of Craon also appears as a witness and donor. 50 Leland’s Itinerary, ed Toulmin Smith, I, 24. 51 ibid. 52 Lincolnshire Record Office Inv 27/237. 47

53

252

Lincolnshire Record Office Inv 87/258. A will of Richard Paynell of 1560 also exists (PRO Prob II 43 f 271), but mentions only the ‘mannor of bothby paynell’.

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

11) are by RBH. The resistivity survey results (Figures 13 and 15) have been processed by RBH. Figure 15, showing excavation detail, is by RBH. All photographs are by JC. Figures 18 and 19 are by EAI.

refuse and thus domestic use. Thirdly, the building was situated precisely where a hall might be expected to have stood, as the course of the moat rules out a site to the south or west, and in this position it could have communicated easily with the first-floor entrance to the Manor House; comparable arrangements (at least partly) survive at Beaumont-le-Richard, Douvres-la-Delivrande and elsewhere. In addition to the orientation of the buried building and its position in relation to the standing building (above), its own dimensions and ground plan, given a little interpretative licence, may point to its identification. An examination of the plan will show that the western half (which may have measured about 15.00 by 8.00m on the inside) appears relatively uncluttered but too wide for a single-spanned floor or roof, implying the existence of aisle posts or other relatively ephemeral supports. The eastern section of the structure, however, is bisected by a linear anomaly running east-west, suggestive of an internal ground-floor partition, which could also have allowed for a floor above. Further speculation as to details of its layout is tempting, but would be inappropriate without further evidence.

ABSTRACT The Manor House at Boothby Pagnell, c 1200, consisting of two rooms raised over a vaulted basement, is the best known small-scale domestic building to survive from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries in England. This article presents a new and detailed survey of the standing building and its site, a detailed description, and some new points of analysis. It also presents the results of geophysical survey and excavation prompted by the recent re-interpretation of ‘first floor halls’ (of which Boothby is the archetype) as chamber-blocks, typically accompanied by ground-floor halls. The discovery of a medieval structure measuring 24.50m by 17.00m to the east of the standing building suggests that this may have been the case at Boothby. RÉSUMÉ La résidence seigneuriale de Boothby Pagnell, c 1200, qui consiste en deux pièces au-dessus d’un rez-de-chaussée voûté, est le mieux connu de tous les édifices civils de petite taille subsistant en Angleterre pour les XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Cet article présente une étude nouvelle et approfondie des vestiges et du site ainsi que de nouveaux éléments d’analyse. Il présente aussi les résultats d’une étude géophysique et de fouilles limitées, études suscitées par la réinterprétation récente des first-floor halls (dont Boothby est l’archétype) comme des chamber-blocks, normalement accompagné d’une salle basse indépendente, et non comme des résidences à part entière, mais comme des ‘chamber-blocks’ à fonction purement résidentielle, couramment associés à une grande salle. La découverte des fondations d’une structure médiévale mesurant 24.50 m x 17.00 m à l’est du bâtiment en élévation suggère que c’était peut-être le cas à Boothby.

CONCLUSIONS Interpretation based on the detailed record and study presented above generally supports existing conclusions as to its date and phasing; the main body of the structure dates from c 1200, but was altered in about 1500 with the insertion of a loft and the re-arrangement of the first-floor interior. Recent re-assessment of the structural type to which the Manor belongs, however, suggests that it was not an entire house, but the chamber-block of a complex which included a ground-floor hall. Archaeological investigation intended to test this hypothesis, in the form of resistivity survey and excavation, has revealed the presence and approximate layout of a building measuring c 24.5m by 17.00m to the east of the Manor House, within the presumed circuit of the moat, and with stone footings probably intended to carry masonry walls rather than a timber frame; some indications in the sparse documentary record and the proportions and position of the buried structure suggest it may have been an accompanying hall. This can only be proved by further excavation, but the indications are that Boothby Pagnell, so often cited as the archetypal ‘first-floor hall’, may provide some of the best evidence for the ‘hall and chamber-block’ model.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Das Herrenhaus von Boothby Pagnell, ca. 1200, bestehend aus zwei Räumen über einem eingewölbten Keller, ist das bekannteste Wohngebäude kleineren Maßtabes in England aus dem zwölften oder dreizehnten Jahrhundert. Der vorliegende Aufsatz enthält eine neue und detaillierte Untersuchung des existierenden Gebäudes und seiner Lage sowie eine ausführliche Beschreibung und einige neue Deutungsmöglichkeiten. Der Artikel stellt außerdem die Ergebnisse der geophysikalischen Untersuchung und Ausgrabung vor, veranlaßt durch die erst kürzlich erfolgte Neuinterpretation der first-floor halls (Boothby ist einer ihrer Archetypen) als eine Zimmerflucht mit der typischen großen Halle im Erdgeschoß: die Entdeckung einer mittelalterlichen Struktur mit den Maßen ca. 24.5 m auf 17 m östlich vom erhaltenen Gebäude läßt vermuten, daß dies in Boothby tatsächlich der Fall war.

A NOTE ON THE FIGURES All but two of the drawn Figures have been prepared by Roland Harris [RBH] from a variety of sources, using CAD (Microstation 95). Figures 3, 4 and 5 are based on hand-drawn survey by Edward Impey [EAI], digitized and completed by RBH; Figure 8 has been produced by RBH, digitizing from rectified photographs by John Crook [JC] controlled by outline surveys by EAI. The reconstructed elevations (Figure 12) and the photo reconstruction (Figure 253

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Faulkner, P A 1958. ‘Domestic planning from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries’, Archaeol J, 105, 150– 83 Fletcher, B 1897. A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method, 1st edn, London Fulman, W and Gale, T 1684. Rerum Anglicarum Scriptorum Veterum, vol I, Oxford Gray, J M 1932. The School of Pythagoras, Cambridge Hamilton Thompson, A 1912. Military Architecture in England during the Middle Ages, London Hare, J N 1987. Bishop’s Waltham Palace, Hampshire, HMSO Official Guide Harris, R B 1994. ‘The origins and development of English medieval townhouses operating commercially on two storeys.’ Unpublished DPhil thesis, Oxford Impey, E 1993a. ‘Seigneurial domestic architecture in Normandy, 1050–1350’, in Meirion-Jones and Jones 1993, 82–120 –– 1993b. Rapport de Prospection thématique sur l’Architecture seigneuriale en Normandie, 1050– 1350, Saison 1993. Submitted to the Service Régional de l’Archéologie, Basse-Normandie –– 1995. Creully: Guide historique et architecturale, Cahiers du Temps –– 1997. ‘La Demeure seigneuriale en Normandie entre 1125 et 1225 et la tradition anglo-normande’, in Baylé, M and Bouet, P, L’Architecture normande au Moyen Age, I, 219–41 Knight, J K 1980. Grosmont Castle, Gwent. HMSO Official Guide Leland’s Itinerary in England and Wales, ed Toulmin Smith, L, 5 vols, 1906–10 [The] Lincolnshire Domesday and Lindsey Survey, ed Foster, C W and Longley, T, Lincs Rec Soc, vol 19, Lincoln 1921. Little, B 1985. Norman Architecture in Britain, London Lloyd, N 1931. A History of the English House, London Mahany, C 1977. ‘Excavations at Stamford Castle, 1971– 6’, Château Gaillard, 8, 223–45 Meirion-Jones, G and Jones, M (eds) 1993. Manorial Domestic Buildings in England and Northern France, Society of Antiquaries of London, Occasional Papers, no 15, London Nenk, B, Margeson, S and Hurley, M 1993. ‘Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1992’, Med Archaeol, 37, 288 Nissen-Jaubert, A 1993. ‘Domfront (château); chapelle Sainte Catherine’, Bilan scientifique, Caen Pevsner, N and Harris, J 1964. The Buildings of England: Lincolnshire, 2nd edn, rev Antram, N 1989 Pitte, D 1994. ‘Architecture civile en pierre à Rouen du XIe au XIIIe siècle. La maison romane’, Archéol méd, 24, 251–99 Platt, C 1990. The Architecture of Medieval Britain: A Social History, London and New Haven Rigold, S 1962. Temple Manor, Strood. HMSO Official Guide Riley, H T 1893. Ingulph’s Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland, London

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to Lady Nethersthorpe for permission to undertake the fieldwork described above, and to both her and Penny Nichols for much help and hospitality. We would also like to thank the following: Professor and Mrs Michael Jones for accommodation nearby; Dr John Crook, Diane Harris, Dr Richard Jones and Professor Gwyn Meirion-Jones for fieldwork; Neville Cox for help with site re-instatement; Andrew Payne for supplying data on the 1981 resistivity survey; Dr Mark Gardiner and Archaeology South-East for the loan of equipment for resistivity survey in 1995; Anna Keay for transcribing a Will at the Public Record Office; Alan Vince for a pottery report; Nicky Scott of the Oxford Archaeological Unit for advice on the bones; Lindy Grant for comments on the dating of the Manor House, and Elisabeth Lorans and Christopher Kerstjens for translating the abstract into French and German. Finally, we would like to thank the British Academy for its contribution to the fieldwork, through a Post-doctoral Fellowship awarded to Edward Impey in 1992. Bibliography Albrecht, U 1995. ‘Halle-Saalgeschoshaus-Wohnturm. Zur Kenntnis von westeuropäischen Prägetypen hochmittelalterlicher Adelssitze im umkreis Heinrich des Löwen und seiner Söhne, in Luckhardt, J und Niehoff, F (eds), Heinrich der Löwe und seine Zeit, Ausstellungskatalog, ii, 492– 501 Anon 1909. ‘Proceedings at meetings’, Archaeol J, 66, 379 Bartlett, A 1994. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 4230, ‘Boothby Pagnell, Lincs’, Series no 29/81 Baylé, M and Bouet, P (eds) 1997. L’Architecture normande au Moyen Age: Actes du Colloque de Cerisy-la-Salle (28 septembre –2 octobre 1994), Caen Beresford, G 1974. ‘The medieval manor of Penhallam, Jacobstow, Cornwall’, Med Archaeol, 18, 90–145 Blair, J 1993. ‘Hall and chamber: English domestic planning 1000–1250’, in Meirion–Jones, G and Jones, M (eds), 1–21 Blair, J and Steane, J 1982. ‘Investigations at Cogges, Oxfordshire: the priory and parish church’, Oxoniensia, 43, 37–125 Boothby Hall Estate, Sale catalogue of 1926 (9 pp) Braun, H 1940. The Story of the English House, London Bull, F W 1927–33. ‘A Norman Manor House’, Records of Bucks, 12 , 229–301 Colvin, H M 1995. A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 1600–1840, 3rd edn, London Coppack, G and Gilyard-Beer, R 1995. Fountains Abbey, HMSO Official Guide Ditchfield, P H and Jones, S R 1910. The Manor Houses of England, London Dymond, M 1992. Archaeological Works at Boothby Pagnell Manor House, Boothby Pagnell, Lincolnshire. 254

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

St John Hope, W H 1900. ‘Fountains Abbey’, Yorks Archaeol J, 15, 120–5 Thompson, M W 1995. The Medieval Hall: the Basis of Secular Domestic Life, AD 600–1600, Aldershot Turner, H T and Parker, J H 1851. Some Account of Domestic Architecture in England Ages, from the Conquest to the end of the thirteenth century, Oxford, 3 vols White, A 1981. The Norman Manor House at Boothby Pagnell, Lincolnshire Museums Information Sheet, Archaeology Series, no 23 Wood, M E 1935. ‘Norman domestic architecture’, Archaeol J, 92, 167–242 –– 1964. The English Mediaeval House, London Zeffert, T 1988. Unpublished watching brief

255

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 1 Location map and plan of village Boothby Pagnell village, with location map (right), adapted from 1st edition 25in OS map, 1888 (Sheet 123, f 10), and a modern aerial photograph (NMR No SK93SE38). Note the earthworks to the west of the church, the indications of a moated enclosure to the east, and the area of ridge-and-furrow to the west of the village. The sunken areas to the west and south of the Manor House mark the course of the moat referred to in the sixteenth century

Figure 2 The Manor House and its immediate surroundings Roland B Harris

256

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

Figure 3 The Manor House: ground- and first-floor plans Edward Impey, Roland B Harris

257

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 4 The Manor House: longitudinal section A–A, showing the four main compartments of the original structure and the original fireplace and chimney on the west wall Edward Impey, Roland B Harris

258

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

Figure 5 The Manor House: transverse sections B–B and C–C Edward Impey, Roland B Harris

259

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 6 The Manor House: north, south and western elevations Edward Impey, Roland B Harris, John Crook

Figure 7 The Manor House: general view from the east John Crook

260

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

Figure 8 East elevation, 1996 Roland B Harris

261

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 9 The southern compartment of the ground floor John Crook

Figure 10 Fireplace Country Life

262

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

Figure 11 The Manor House. View of the east front, showing the building essentially as it stands (above) and in its existing context, but as if the central first-floor window, roof-pitch and other features of the original construction had never been altered (below). Digital reconstruction by Roland B Harris

263

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 12 The Manor House: reconstructed elevations Roland B Harris

Figure 13 Plan showing the area of geophysical survey in 1981 and 1995 Roland B Harris

264

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

Figure 14 Result of the 1995 resistivity survey, interpolated to a 250mm resolution Roland B Harris

Figure 15

Plans of trench excavated in 1995 Roland B Harris

265

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 16 Wall excavated in 1995 John Crook

266

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

Figure 17 Examples of the ‘first-floor hall’ or ‘chamber-block’, including examples in Normandy. Simplified plans to the same scale. Medieval work either standing or excavated, or known from other sources, shown in black; inferred medieval fabric in dot-dash outline, conjectural in broken line. Later fabric stippled (where shown). A denotes ground floor, B upper floor. 1. Boothby Pagnell; 2. Burton Agnes, Yorkshire (Wood 1964); 3. Cambridge, Merton Hall (RCHM); 4. Christchurch, Dorset (Wood 1964); 5. Cogges, Oxfordshire (Blair 1982); 6. Grosmont, Monmouthshire (Knight 1980); 7. Jacobstow, Cornwall (Beresford 1974); 8. Eynsford, Kent (Rigold 1971);

267

The Seigneurial Residence in Western Europe AD c 800–1600

Figure 17 (cont.) 9. Stamford, Lincolnshire (Mahany 1977); 10. Strood, Kent (Rigold 1962); 11. Ardevon, Manche (Impey 1994); 12. Beaumont-le-Richard, Calvados (Impey 1993a, 1993b, 1997); 13. Bricquebec, Manche (Impey 1993a, 1993b, 1997); 14. Creully, Calvados (Impey 1994, 1997); 15. Domfront, Orne (Nissen-Jaubert 1994); 16. Douvres-la-Delivrande, Calvados (Impey 1993b, 1997); 17. Fontaine Henry, Calvados (Impey 1993b); 18. Glos-sur-Risle, Eure (surveyed E Impey 1993); 19. Loisail, Orne (Impey 1993b); 20. Martin-Église, Seine-Maritime (surveyed E Impey 1994); 21. Rouen (Pitte, 1994)

268

Edward Impey and Roland Harris: Boothby Pagnell Revisited

Figure 18 English and Norman Sites at which remnants of co-existent hall and chamber-block of ‘first-floor hall’ type, dating from 1150–1220, have been identified. Simplified plans to the same scale. 1. Bricquebec, Manche (Impey 1993a, 1993b, 1997); 2. Beaumont-le-Richard, Calvados (Impey 1993a, 1993b, 1997); 3. Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire (Coppack and Gilyard-Beer 1995); 4. Bishops Waltham, Hampshire (Hare 1987); 5. Boothby Pagnell; 6. Creully, Calvados (Impey 1995, 1997); 7. Deloraine Court, Lincoln (Harris, R B 1994); 8. Douvres-la-Delivrande, Calvados (Impey 1993b); 9. Stamford Castle, Lincolnshire (Mahany 1977)

269